NEW Plug-in Scam Website

Filed Under Policy, Transportation | Leave a Comment

Due to the growing concern about the prevalence of misinformation about energy – and especially information relative to plug-in electric vehicles, Pat created a website, PlugInScam.org, where he writes regular blog postings and white papers addressing vehicle electrification.

Car companies, government agencies, and our President are involved in covering up the actual fuel economy (MPG) and associated carbon dioxide emissions of such vehicles.  PlugInScam.org is devoted to exposing the “false solution” of plug-in cars, both battery electric vehicles (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). Its objective is to inform people about the MPG misrepresentation for BEVs and PHEVs done to provide false hope for the “clean” electrification of personal transportation.

The main purpose of this website is to expose government misrepresentation of the miles per gallon (MPG) ratings of plug-in cars. Pat believes conventional gasoline hybrids combined with real time ride sharing, represents the best approach for the nation to significantly reduce its use of gasoline. He and his wife own a Toyota Prius and a Honda Insight.

Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? Part 4

Filed Under Transportation | 1 Comment

Pat Murphy       May 2, 2011

Summarizing EV/PHEV performance –  1996 to 2011

Attempting to evaluate car mileage performance from past and present EPA labels is not the same as actually testing them. The Leaf and Volt have only been available for a few months and extensive performance testing has not been done. Hopefully the EPA performance values are reasonably accurate. Table 4-1 combines the data from the previous parts of this analysis (table 2-2 to 2-4) a past and present approximation of 37 mpg for a range of EVs, very close to the Leaf average of 36 mpg.

Table 4-1 Combined New and Older EV Cars

This is a much lower appraisal of actual PHEV and EV mileage performance than the estimates of the EPA and car manufacturers. As a general rule one could reduce any mileage numbers shown on an EPA label for electric cars by roughly 2/3 to be more accurate. Comparing different fuels using different modes of energy generation (power plant generators versus internal combustion engines) is tricky. However, it is not unsolvable unless one has an interest in distorting the information. Unfortunately government and auto makers are marketing, not measuring.

It is notable that the first EV car, the GM EV1, seems to have better mileage than the latest model, the Nissan Leaf. And the Leaf does not have significantly higher performance that the RAV 4 EV. The mileage performance of the new generation of electric cars is not outstanding. Note that the PHEV Volt and BEV Leaf are very close in terms of fuel economy.

Comparing the BEV/PHEV to the HEV

Figure 3-1 of the previous section of this analysis pointed out that the concept of an ever improving mileage for PHEVs as the battery storage increased was misleading. The change from an HEV, which is a gasoline car, to a PHEV which is an electric car, does not result in an automotive improvement in mpg. I have previously noted that the original 41 mpg Prius delivered to the U.S. in 2002 had a major negative impact on the CARB ZEVs once hybrid cars were included in CARB’s portfolio of low emissions cars under the designation of Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles (PZEVs). It is important to understand how a more contemporary HEV will compare to the later electric cars?

We are fortunate that the new BEV (Leaf) and the new PHEV (Volt) can be compared directly to a new HEV, the 2011 Prius. Table 4-2 shows the mileage comparisons of the newer cars.

Table 4-2: Comparison of adjusted mileage numbers for Volt, Leaf, Prius

The electric vehicles accurate mpg corrections for the energy cost of generating electricity have been derived in earlier parts of this analysis. The Prius mpg is taken from the EPA label. This number is surprising to those who have accepted the EPA and car companies way of calculating Mile per Gallon Equivalence. But the approach used here are more in line with the laws of thermodynamics.

Adding the Prius makes a difficult job of comparing architectures even harder. One way to make a normalized comparison is to measure the CO₂ that is generated from the various options. Both electric cars and gasoline cars generate CO₂ as fuel is burned – either gasoline in the car itself or coal and natural gas at a remote power plant. Such a comparison is possible now with the latest car models.

The CO₂ Method of Comparison – EV/PHEV vs. Prius

CO₂ measures are the most important metrics for cars and their influence on the climate. It is not an artificially calculated “miles per gallon equivalence (MPGe)”. Nor is it a question of how much money is saved. Gasoline is a small part of the average person’s budget and should be viewed as secondary compared to the fate of the atmosphere. The computation of CO₂ from the options is not difficult. The EPA web site entitled Green Power Equivalency Calculator Methodologies[1] states:

“The national average carbon dioxide output rate for generated electricity in 2005 was 1,329 lbs CO₂ per megawatt-hour (EPA 2009), which translates to 1,422 lbs CO₂ per megawatt-hour for delivered electricity (assuming 7 percent in transmission and distribution losses).”

This is equal to 1.422 lbs of CO₂ per kilowatt hour. Three miles per kWh is a reasonable approximation for the electrical cars analyzed as shown in Table 4-1. Dividing the 1.422 lbs. of CO₂ per kilowatt hour by 3 gives about .47 lbs of CO₂ per mile.

Compare this to a 50 mpg 2011 Prius. Burning a gallon of gasoline generates 19.4 pounds of CO₂. [2] A 50 mpg Prius will generate 19.4/50 or .39 lbs of CO₂ per mile. It appears that the Prius generates less CO₂ per mile driven than the electric models. However there is an advantage for the Prius in that the approximately 17% of energy used to refine and deliver the gasoline is not included.[3] This was pointed out in part 2 in the derivation of the data in table 2-3. To adjust for this, the .39 lbs. of CO₂ per mile must be divided by .83 (100% – 17%) giving a new number of .47 lbs. of CO₂ per mile for the Prius, very close to that of the electric cars. Applying the same normalizing principle, the mileage of the Prius after considering the embodied energy of gasoline is 41.5 (50 mpg times .83). This is close to the mpg equivalent of the average of old and new EVs.

From this cursory analysis, the Volt, Prius and Leaf show similar performance in terms of mileage per energy expended as well as for CO₂. In February 2011 the prestigious American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) gave a rating to the top 13 cars. [4] The Leaf was 2^nd with a “green” score of 54, the Prius was 4^th with a score of 52 and the Volt was 13^th with a score of 48. Wisely the ACEEE did not put a mpg number on the Leaf but listed miles per kWh (mpkWh) – 3.15 mpkWh for city and 2.72 mpkWh for highway, with an average of 2.93 mpkWh, very close to my number of 3.02 derived in column 5 of table 4-1.

The CO₂ Utility and Future Mix Argument

Figure 4-1 is from a European study that shows CO₂ emissions are a function of power plant generating fuel mix.[5] The top horizontal line represents emissions for a new gasoline car. The lower horizontal line represents emissions from a new diesel car. (There is no line for a new hybrid car).  The numbers are displayed in grams of CO₂ per kilometer rather than the pounds of CO₂ per mile as discussed previously. Thus the charts use is limited to showing EV emissions compared to non hybrid cars in different countries. The differing levels of CO₂ generated in the different countries are a reflection of their fuel mix and power plant efficiency. China, with the fastest growth in car usage, has high emissions because of its heavy use of coal. India is not shown on the chart but is another coal dependent country that is experience rapid car population growth. This illustrates the importance of understanding that electric car success is very limited by the existing infrastructure of power plants as well as available fuels.

Figure 4-1: CO₂ from EVs by Nation

Might the CO₂ output of an electric car change if more renewables were available? Yes, to some extent, but consider the estimates for electricity from future renewables. The following projection (figure 4-2) shows the energy history and projections for electricity from different fuels. Recall that cars last on average about 14 years so the initial Volts will have been scrapped while renewable energy’s part of the mix will have only increased 4% – from 10% to 14%. [6]

Figure 4-2: Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release Overview Sources of Electricity

Mileage performance for new cars typically increases about 1.5% per year.[7] But the number of cars being added to the world car fleet, particularly in the third world, is increasing much faster than the miles per gallon performance. It is doubtful if the CO₂ decrease from EVs and PHEVs will even be measurable. Figure 4-3 illustrates this concept of an increasing car population compared to increasing mileage performance.

Figure 4-3: Comparison of fleet growth and gasoline use

It is not easy to understand the implications of figure 4-3 because it is counterintuitive to our normal mode of thinking. This situation of increasing energy consumption with energy efficiency improvements (illustrated in figure 4) was described by economist William Jevons in 1865. The proposition, called the Jevons paradox or the Jevons effect, says the technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase, rather than decrease, the rate of consumption. Contrary to common intuition technological improvements will not always reduce fuel consumption. Therefore as cars get more efficient with better gas mileage, more people in the third world will replace their bicycle or moped with a small car.

The Solar Electricity Option – Capital Costs

It could be argued that the electricity for Volt or Leaf will be supplied by solar panels. If a Leaf gets 3 miles per kWh and is driven 15,000 miles per year, then the annual electricity usage would be 4,500 kWh per year. In Ohio, a 1 kW PV system delivers about 1,300 kWh/year. A 4 kW system would be necessary to support an electric car. Assuming an installation cost of $10,000/Kw, the cost to supply a 4 kW system would be about $40,000 which should be added to the initial capital costs of the car. Of course gasoline savings would offset this. At 9 cents per mile, the gasoline savings per year would be about $1,350.

Who will Kill the Electric Car This Time?

This analysis is a continuation of earlier analysis of the Plug In Hybrid (PHEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) first discussed in New Solutions #9, June 2006.[8] It was developed further in my books Plan C (published in 2008) and Spinning Our Wheels (published in 2010). Little has changed in five years in terms of how mileage is computed for electric vehicles. In reviewing that 2006 paper, I was reminded of how many well known national leaders – including U.S. Senators – were quoting mileage numbers such as 500 mpg for PHEVs. Today the Volt label – the first commercial PHEV – shows 60 mpg, well below those claims and well below the 100 + mpg claimed by CalCars for its modified Prius. It is also well below President Obama’s 150 mpg goal. Furthermore the Volt 60 mpg number is too high – the actual number as derived in the parts of this blog will likely be in the range of 35-40 mpg. The hyperbole associated with the PHEV was (and is) excessive.

There does not seem to be a major improvement in miles per kWh for the Leaf, the current representative of BEVs. Nor is there a major improvement in the Volt when operating solely as a BEV running off its grid charged batteries. The older RAV4 EV is still performance competitive with the newest BEVs. The major changes in the latest EVs are increases in battery storage capacity and increases in range rather than an improvement in miles per kWh. When fairly evaluated the cars get about the same miles per gallon equivalent of fuel (considering generation and transmissions energy costs) and generate about the same amount of CO₂ as that of the newest 2011 Prius. This is not surprising when one considers their size, weight and rolling resistance which are similar.

The performance is still very questionable. And it’s hard to trust the manufacturers. Consumers Report suggests that the mileage is about 2 miles per kWh for the Volt and 3 miles per kWh for the Leaf.[9] Using site energy versus source energy this means an equivalent of about of 24 – 28 mpg. Consumer reports noted in their tests:

“While in electric mode, the dash display shows 250 mpg, which is a little misleading because in that mode the car isn’t using any gasoline. It’s like reporting a kid’s perfect grade-point average on the first day of school.” [10]

So the answer to the question of Who Will Kill the Electric Vehicle This Time? is the same answer to the question posed in the 2006 documentary film entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? The original Prius, as a partial ZEV (PZEV), undermined the case for the CARB ZEV program which lead to CARB changes and finally the so-called “killing” of the electric car. It is still the hybrid car, best exemplified by the 2011 Prius (50 mpg versus 41 mpg for the 2002 Prius and 46 mpg for the 2004 model) that will challenge the new generation of BEVs as well as the PHEVs. Other high mileage conventional hybrids have been recently announced including a hybrid version of the Toyota Yaris car that utilizes the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD) technology from the Prius in the B-segment (subcompact) cars. This marks Toyota’s first downsizing of its HSD technology. The popular Honda Fit (Jazz in Europe) is now available in a hybrid version in the subcompact market in Europe.[11] [12]

A new movie by the director Chris Paine of Who Killed the Electric Car? fame, entitled Revenge of the Electric Car is near release and extols the virtues of the products previously discussed such as the Leaf and the Tesla.[13] The film may be an example of premature triumphalism. The success for EV options (battery or pluggable hybrid) is not certain. The misrepresentations of both kinds of designs generated great enthusiasm but claimed miles per gallon (mpg) have never been verified. It would be helpful of the mileage claims that might appear in this film had been carefully considered to deal with the misrepresentation issues discussed here.

In a recent WSJ article[14] Toyota again repeated its commitment to the hybrid car, noting that the company built 3 million hybrids from 1997 through 2010. In April 2011, Toyota sold its one millionth Prius in the United States. Two million Prius’ have been sold world wide.[15] A larger model of the Prius will be shipped in 2011 and a smaller one in 2012. Hopefully the small model will be in the 55-60 mpg range. Toyota created a new standard of auto efficiency in 1997 with gasoline hybrid technology (HEV) that is now marketed in some form by just about every automobile manufacturer. Toyota also has committed to major improvements in its next generation of gasoline engines for hybrids.[16]

Toyota is not against improvising. It has already announced a PHEV Prius but one with technology that is much less risky that the approach that taken by GM[17]. Before the GM Volt was even shipped, Toyota had placed 600 prototype PHEV Prius’ around the world. It has been tested more than the Volt, is built on the existing Prius platform and has much more modest performance goals. It provides 13 kWh of battery storage rather than the 35 kWh of the Volt. The maximum speed will be 62 mpg. But most important it will have the high Prius gas mileage when operating in conventional mode.[18] To some extent, GM has taken a “bet your company approach” with the unique Volt while Toyota is being much more conservative and taking smaller steps building on proven designs.

It may distress many should conventional hybrids continue to outperform electric cars. But the important news is that such cars are already at high performance levels. They are also proven with many different models and high numbers of such cars on the highway. We might hope for 60-70 mpg cars in the next ten years which will help us to deeply cut our CO₂ emissions. The government and U.S. car manufacturers might better focus their attention on smaller cars, lower speed limits and mass transportation rather than a hi tech risky endeavor to electrify transportation.

---

[1] http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/pubs/calcmeth.htm

[2] http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm

[3] [3] Fuel Economy Numbers for Electric Vehicles, Prepared by: MIT Electric Vehicle Team, March 2008 http://mit.edu/evt/summary_mpgge.pdf

[4] Latest Technologies Place But Don’t Win In This Year’s Greenest Vehicles List  February 16, 2011  http://www.aceee.org/press/2011/02/latest-technologies-place-dont-win-years-greenest-vehicl

[5] http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/03/ecometrica-20110328.html

Technical Paper – Your new electric car emits 75 gCO2/km (at the power station) by Gary David, ecometrica, March 2011 http://d3u3pjcknor73l.cloudfront.net/assets/media/pdf/electric_car_emits_75_gCO2_per_km.pdf

[6] Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release Overview

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383er%282011%29.pdf

[7] John German Testimony to Congress <http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=287981fa-c472-4862-857d-3913d416297e&Witness_ID=e2050b74-5cff-4f6f-9832-fec00f3ab26c>

[8] Salting the Earth by Pat Murphy, Jun2 2006 http://www.communitysolution.org/pdfs/NS9.pdf

[9] Electric Cars, Consumer Reports April 2011 page 15

[10] http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/01/just-in-2011-chevrolet-volt-living-with-our-test-car.html

[11] Toyota’s Yaris hybrid concept anticipates B-segment hybrid strategy with first downsizing of HSD; Prius + March 2, 2011 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/03/yarishsd-20110302.html

[12] http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/03/geneva-auto-show-honda-jazz-hybrid/

[13] “Chris Paine Returns with ‘Revenge of the Electric Car’” by Jim Motavalli , New York Times, December 15, 2010, http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/chris-paine-returns-with-revenge-of-the-electric-car/

[14] WSJ article March 10, 2011 Toyota Hones Focus, Top Ranks

[15] http://www.energyboom.com/transportation/toyota-sells-one-millionth-prius-united-states

[16] Toyota targeting thermal efficiency of more than 45% for next-generation gasoline engines for hybrids, Green Car Congress, April 11, 2011 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/04/nakata-20110411.html#more

[17] 2012 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid – Editors’ take By: Wayne Cunningham Published on: 02/11/2011 http://reviews.cnet.com/coupe-hatchback/2012-toyota-prius-plug/4505-10867_7-34497768.html

[18] The 2011 Guide to Automotive Enhancements by Toyota, WSJ April 27, 2011

Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? Part 3 The Pluggable Hybrid PHEV

Filed Under Transportation | Comments Off

Pat Murphy             April 29, 2011

Extending the BEV Concept

Part 1 summarized the early history of the CARB Zero Emissions Program, the development of Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs) and their miles per gallon ratings. Part 2 discussed the latest reincarnation of BEVs, the Nissan Leaf, first shipped in December 2010. The miles per kWh of the Leaf are in the same range as those of the CARB cars of the late 1990s. Miles per gallons overstatements were described and analyzed.

The Pluggable (or Plugged In) Hybrid (PHEV)

The GM EV1, delivered in late 1996, was the first Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) available for mass purchase/lease. In the following year, 1997, the first hybrid, the Prius, was delivered. The concepts of electric cars, hybrid cars and PHEVs are not new. The Plug In Hybrid concept was first demonstrated by Victor Wouk in 1974 when he combined a Buick Skylark body with a Mazda Wankel engine and lead acid batteries.[1] The project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and achieved its performance objectives; however, the EPA declined to provide additional funding. In 1976 Congress passed the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Act for research purposes with much of the funding allocated to the U.S. national labs.[2]

About two decades after Wouk’s prototype, Professor Andrew Frank of the University of California at Davis (UC – Davis) began converting conventional vehicles into PHEVs. Frank, who is said to have “re-invented” the modern Plug-In Hybrid, modified nine vehicles (six passenger sedans, SUVs, sport cars, and a GM EV1), to demonstrate the PHEV concept.[3] His program was supported by government agencies as well as by U.S. automobile companies. A modified GM EV1 prototype, which included PHEV features, was built around 1998.[4]

Electric Power Research Institute

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a research and lobbying arm for the electric power industry, is a major advocate for the PHEV concept. EPRI has supported and funded Dr. Frank’s work. In 2000 EPRI sponsored the broad-based Hybrid Electric Vehicle Alliance (HEVA), to promote PHEVs. Alliance members included major automakers, Department of Energy (DOE) national labs, utilities, and the University of California at Davis (UC-Davis). In 2001 the Department of Energy (DOE) created the National Center of Hybrid Excellence at UC Davis, with Dr. Frank as Director.

Figure 3-1 is based on an EPRI graphic that illustrates that organization’s view of the relationships of conventional cars to hybrids to pluggable hybrids. It shows about a hybrid provides a 30% fuel savings over a conventional car. An example would be the 2010 Honda Civic hybrid, that gets 41 mpg, compared to a 2010 Honda Civic non-hybrid that gets 29 mpg.

Figure 3–1: Gasoline Use Projections-Conventional, Hybrid and PHEVs[5]

In this figure, the PHEV20 and PHEV60 show an improvement for the hybrid. But the PHEV columns do not show the electricity generating fossil fuels that substitute electricity for the gasoline. Thus the fuel savings of a PHEV20 and PHEV60 compared to a hybrid are misleading. In the case of the conventional and hybrid vehicle gallons consumed represent all the energy used in driving the cars. The PHEV20 and 60 columns do not show the fossil fuels used to generate electricity. Unfortunately misleading charts like this have been used to support the popularization of a new technology paradigm.

In 2002, a non profit organization called CalCars began lobbying for the so called “Pluggable or Plug-In Hybrid” [6] receiving some of its funding from electrical utilities. In 2004, CalCars modified a standard Toyota Prius, placing additional batteries in the trunk. They called this Plug-In Hybrid the “PRIUS+”.[7] The added batteries could be charged from the electricity grid and the Prius could be driven operate on these batteries alone without using the gasoline engine. Using batteries, the car could go no faster than 35 mph, a fact glossed over by its supporters.[8] CalCars claimed that the mileage was greater than 100 mpg – their slogan was “100 mpg +.” [9]

In May 2006 CalCars flew a plug-in Prius+ to the nation’s capital from California. Together with two other organizations, Set America Free and the Plug-In Hybrid Consortium, CalCars put on a marketing blitz of the Prius 100+ mpg car, demonstrating it to Senators, Representatives, congressional staff, reporters, builders, and tourists. The mantra was “It’s here now!” Four and one half years later the first commercial plug-in hybrid shipped – the Chevrolet Volt – with a performance level well below 100 mpg +.  CalCars and EPRI and other interested parties continue to promote the supposedly 100+ mpg vehicle even though this performance claim was never substantiated and in some cases it was refuted.[10]

U.S. Government Support for the PHEV

During the Clinton/Gore years the government formed and directed the Program for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). One result of the eight year PNGV program were three concept diesel hybrids that obtained from 60-80 mpg. They were shown at the Detroit Auto Show in 1998.[11] In 2001, the Bush administration redirected the PNGV program away from the development of high mileage diesel hybrids to a new program, FreedomCAR, which emphasized fuel cell propulsion. In 2002, the CARB ZEV program began changing its ZEV standards. With the decline of the CARB ZEV program and the redirection of the PNGV program, Detroit and the government turned their attention (again) to the ill fated fuel cell car on which it had expended so much time and energy years before. Just as Bush changed the car propulsion direction set by Clinton so did Obama change the car propulsion direction set by Bush.

While campaigning in 2008, presidential candidate Obama, in his “New Energy for America” speech given in August of 2008, set a goal to put one million 150 mpg PHEVs on the roads by 2015.[12] [13] He proposed a $7,000 tax credit for such cars that would be built in America. He also proposed that $4 billion be allocated to the development and manufacturing of the 150 mpg pluggable hybrid. In May 2009 [14] President Obama cancelled the fuel cell FreedomCar program in order to focus the nation’s resources on electric cars, with an emphasis on PHEVs.

On January 25, 2011 President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the U.S. electric car industry in his State of the Union speech.[15] His latest proposal called for a $7,500 on-the-spot rebate for new electric car purchases, replacing the earlier tax credit. The 2008 goal of 1 million 150 mpg PHEVs was restated (and modified) for the U.S. to become the first nation with 1 million “advanced technology vehicles,” a terminology change from PHEVs lauded in 2008. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and battery cars from other countries were added to the list of supported technologies. The Department of Energy (DOE) supports the Nissan Leaf BEV as an example of foreign non PHEV. In addition, Recovery Act investments have included $2.4 billion in U.S. funding for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, and for electric drive demonstration and infrastructure, [16] including support for Nissan Leaf U.S. manufacturing facilities. [17]

For sixteen years the nation’s car companies and government agencies vacillated from fuel cell to diesel hybrid to fuel cell again and now to the PHEV. Yet the PHEV concept has still not been proven to be sound. The first PHEV – the GM Volt – has a mileage rating of 60 mpg. This is probably exaggerated but even that optimistic number is well below the 150 mpg goal set by the president. A million “advanced technology vehicles” may be on the road by 2015 but their mileage will be much closer to 50 mpg than 150 mpg. The nation has made a massive commitment to a technology that has not been thoroughly analyzed or demonstrated. It has certainly been marketed – particularly by the electric utilities and their research arm, EPRI. But with production cars now available for testing by a large number of people, more realistic performance numbers should be forthcoming.

Hyping the Volt

GM expressed regrets within a few years of cancelling the EV1 program. CEO Rick Waggoner, when asked in 2006 what his most-regretted decision was, responded that it was “axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids”.[18] A year later GM R&D chief Larry Burns said, in reference to a prototype plug-in hybrid based on the GM EV1 his engineers had developed, “If we could turn back the hands of time, we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier.”[19]

In August of 2009, GM President and CEO Fritz Henderson (who had replaced Waggoner) announced that the Volt mileage would be 230 mpg[20] initiating a  public relations campaign using a cutesy logo to market the number (Figure 3-2). The 230 mpg was quickly analyzed by different experts, who exposed its falsity.[21] GM was ridiculed and four months later Henderson was replaced.

Figure 3-2: GM Exaggeration of Volt Performance

The EPA did not challenge this hyperbole but made an innocuous statement invalidating the number while praising GM for its efforts saying:

“EPA has not tested a Chevy Volt and therefore cannot confirm the fuel economy value claimed by GM. EPA does applaud GM’s commitment to designing and building the car of the future – an American-made car that will save families money, significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create good-paying American jobs. We’re proud to see American companies and American workers leading the world in the clean energy innovations that will shape the 21st century economy.” [22]

Part 2 of this series analyzed the Nissan Leaf in the context of being a decade later reincarnation of the EVs of the late 1990s. The Volt is representative of a conceptual PHEV, which did not exist in the period when CARB was looking for a low emissions automotive solution. A few conventional vehicles had been modified to be PHEVs by Andrew Frank of UC-Davis one of them a GM. But there were no real tests made and Frank’s efforts were interesting but by no means a proof of concept.

PHEV hyperbole increased with the CalCars statement of “100 mpg +” for its modified Prius. The UC-Davis automotive center, CalCars and EPRI have been the sources for most of the claims that have generated public interest. Unfortunately, there has never an independent unbiased analysis. And in some actual cases there have been disappointments.[23] The PHEV has been marketed more than it has been engineered. Supposedly the December 2010 shipment of the GM Volt has now provided a mass produced model for the PHEV concept. A critical question is how relevant are the newer performance claims.

EPA and Volt Performance Labels:

The EPA finally provided mpg figures for the Volt in November, 2010, only one month before the first shipments in December 2010. [24] The Volt information from the EPA web site is shown in Figure 3-3. [25]

Figure 3-3: EPA Website Volt Mileage

The Volt label includes two operational modes – one as a BEV like the Leaf (Electricity Only heading) and one as a conventional gasoline car (Premium Gas Only heading). The label that is affixed to the car is shown in Figure 3-4. Unfortunately, the all electric value of 93 mpg and 36 kWh for 100 miles has less information than the EPA website since it does not show city and highway mileage separately. The combined mileage of 60 mpg is given in smaller print in the lower left hand corner of the label (heading-How This Vehicle Compares) but does not refer to combined city and highway which has been the format for cars in the past. Rather it uses a new term “combined composite” which is some unknown combination of the mileage of gasoline and electrical. The label also shows an MGPequivilence of 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline (2^nd line from bottom), which has been discussed in previous parts of this series.  Also shown on the label is a price of $3.20 per gallon of gasoline and $.11 per kWh of electricity. This is used to calculate the fuel costs in the middle of the label ($601 and $1,302). The distance that can be traveled on a fully charged battery is shown to be 35 miles.

Figure 3-4: Volt Window Label

The label has a section in the lower right entitled “Examples: Charging Routines”. Much of the information in this section is not explained but it can be derived. Table 3-1 includes the information from this section as well as additional information that provides the derivation of Fuel Economy MPG.

Table 3–1: Extended Volt Label “Charging Routines”

The first four columns of table 3-1 contain the same contents as the Examples: Charging Routines from figure 3-4. Some simplifications are:

The first column of the table (Mdbfc – which stands for Miles Driven Between Full Charges) lists four unique trip miles – 30, 45, 60 and 75 miles – and a fifth “Never Charge” option.

The second column (FE MPG – which stands for Fuel Economy MPG) shows mpg numbers well above the numbers on the rest of the label (93 mpg for electric and 37 mpg for engine). This is explained later.

Column 3 (EC-kWh – which stands for Electricity Consumed in kilowatt hours) shows 10.9 kWh for 30 miles. This is computed by taking 30% of the 36 kWh per 100 miles shown in the upper left quadrant of on the label.

Column 4 (EFEC which stands for Electricity + Fuel Energy Cost) shows for the 30 mile trip a cost per mile of 4 cents, calculated by multiplying 11 cents per kWh times 10.9 kWh and dividing that result by 30 miles. The other mileage numbers are greater than the 35 mile range so each mileage number assumes that the total capacity of the battery (12.9 kWh) was used. The rest of the mileage numbers in column 4 can be calculated by dividing the mileage into electricity and gas, multiplying the electricity miles by 11 cents per kilowatt hours, multiplying the gas miles by 9 cents per gasoline mile, summing the two costs and dividing the total costs by the total trip miles.

Misleading and Missing Information

The determination of the fuel economy mileage (column 2 – FE MPG) is not explained on the label. Columns 5-6 are added which are used for the derivation of the EPA in calculation mileage. Their contents are:

Column 5 is headed MDUG which stands for Miles Driven Under Gasoline

Column 6 is headed %MG,  which is the percent of the total miles driven

Column 7 is headed MPG which is the miles per gallon to be calculated. These are the calculated numbers given without explanation in column 2.

Since the Volt can be driven 35 miles on the electricity in the battery, determining the “Miles Driven Under Gasoline” (column 5) is simply a matter of  subtracting 35 miles from the total miles in column 1. (Note this applies only to the rows with trip miles of 45, 60 and 75). To determine the percent of the total distance driven using gasoline (column 6 – %MG) the numbers in column 5 are divided by the corresponding number from column 1.  The final calculation, column 7, is done by dividing the number 37 (which is the mileage on the label (upper right) for gas only) by each of the numbers in column 6. Note that the results in this column are the same (with rounding) as the numbers in column 2.

A Manufacturer’s Explanation

The reader may question the scientific rationale for this approach. The techniques were determined by marketers of the PHEV cars. An example is the Trinity car described in the book Spinning Our Wheels.[26] Figure 3-5 is from that book.

Figure 3–5: AFS Trinity MPG model

Recall that the algorithm process is to determine what part of a trip is driven using gasoline and dividing the miles per gallon for the gasoline part by that number. Figure 3-5 shows how the calculation is done. It gives the part driven using gasoline (Hybrid) as 20%. Dividing the 30 mpg by .2 gives the 150 mpg number.

The web site for this AFS Trinity has a Frequently Asked Questions Section which includes the following question and answer[27]:

Q – Why do you call this a 150mpg car if it is mostly electric? Does it really get 150 miles per gallon?

A – When discussing plug-in hybrid cars, mpg figures require deeper explanation. We have calculated gasoline mileage by using average American driving patterns estimated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and simulating the EPA combined urban/highway driving cycle of the host vehicle operating only with its conventional hybrid drive train. In 2003, the U.S. Department of Transportation reported that 78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles a day. On those days, drivers of Extreme Hybrids will need no gasoline at all — even driving an SUV. Assuming that someone drives 40 miles a day, 6 days a week and 80 miles on one weekend day, total weekly distance traveled will be 320 miles. The first 280 miles are electric. The next 40 miles, on one weekend day, will use gas alone. Even if the car, while running only on gas on day 7, were to get only 20 mpg because the car were heavily laden and the driver has a “lead foot,” that would still mean the driver will use just a little more than two gallons of gasoline for the week. Although this translates into 160 MPG, we use a more conservative 150 MPG to take into account that mileage will vary depending on where and how a car is driven, but we are comfortable that 150 miles per gallon of gasoline is a good number for 78% of American drivers driving the way most Americans drive

The important data from the answer is that the distance traveled is 320 miles with 280 miles electricity driven and 40 miles driven using gasoline. The miles per gallon given is 20 mpg. And the calculated number given is 160 MPG (reduced to 150 MPG to be “conservative”). The formula derived above is to take the percentage of trip miles driven and divide it into the mpg. In this case the percent driven is 12.5 percent or .125 which is the result of 40 miles divided by 320 miles. Dividing the miles per gallon (20) by the percent (.125) gives 160 mpg.

Readers may feel incredulous at this explanation. And wonder about the veracity of the developers.  A startup company in a garage may take this approach out of marketing desperation. But this technique is now used by the EPA and the president of the country has accepted it.

Making the Volt Table

Table 3- 2 is similar to the table for the RAV4 EV and Leaf provided in part 2 (table 2-3). This table shows the electric only part of the analysis. Information is from the window label upper left figure 3-4 where the 36 kWh for 100 miles is obtained. The city and highway are obtained from the website label shown in figure 3-3.

Table 3-2: Volt calculations for Electric Drive Component

Since the Leaf, RAV4 EV and Volt cars are in the same weight range, it is no surprise to see similar mpg. From table 2-3 (part 2) the RAV4 EV mileage is 41 mpg and the Leaf mileage is 36 mpg. The Volt combined mileage in column 7 is lower (34 mpg) which may be because it carries a gasoline engine and batteries. Using this modified view of the electrical usage of 34 mpg and combining it with the gasoline mileage from the label of 37 mpg (figure 3-4) one might assume the Volt is probably a 35 or 36 mpg car. Contrast this to the CalCars PHEV claim of “100 mpg +” and President Obama’s goal of 150 mpg.

The next part will show the comparison of the EV and PHEV cars to the latest Toyota Prius hybrid.

---

[1] Victor Wouk – The Father of the Electric Car by Sean Callery, Crabtree Publishing Company, 2009.

[2] Electric and Hybrid Cars – A History by Curtis Anderson and Judy Anderson, McFarland and Company 2005 page 67.

[3] CalCars – Plug-In Hybrids: State of Play, History & Players http://www.calcars.org/history.html

[4] http://electricvehiclesnews.com/History/Companies/General_Motors_EV1.htm

[5] http://www.plugincenter.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Electrify_Transportation_Briefing_Book.pdf

[6] CalCars – The California Cars Initiative – 100+ MPG Hybrids http://www.calcars.org/

[7] CalCars – 100+ MPG Hybrids http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

[8] http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html

[9] http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/46.html

[10] Spinning Our Wheels, Page 34-35

[11] The Machine That Could – PNGV, A government-industry Partnership by Robert M. Chapman Critical Technologies Institute, RAND, 1998

[12] http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

[13] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/obamaenergy_08-04.html

[14] U.S. Drops Research Into Fuel Cells for Cars By Matthew L. Wald, May 7, 2009, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/science/earth/08energy.html?_r=2

[15] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/26/us-obama-speech-text-idUSTRE70P09N20110126

[15] One Million Electric Vehicles By 2015, February 2011 Status Report Department of Energy,   http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/1_million_electric_vehicles_rpt.pdf

[17] Nissan breaks ground on U.S. Leaf production site May 26, 2010 http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20006031-48.html
Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20006031-48.html#ixzz1EycJ5gQJ

[18] http://www.grist.org/article/well-no-kidding

[19] http://www.newsweek.com/2007/03/11/comin-through.html

[20] Chevy Volt to get 230 mpg rating – Ultra-high mileage for GM’s electric-drive Volt could give it a marketing boost by Peter Valdes-Dapena, August 11, 2009:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/11/autos/volt_mpg/?postversion=2009081108

[21] Nissan couldn’t Leaf well enough alone by Jesse, August 15, 2009.

http://www.obscurecraft.net/obscureblog/2009/08/word-problems-nissan-couldnt-l.html

[22] EPA backs away from GM claim of 230 mpg for Volt by Jeremy Korzeniewski , Aug 11,  2009 http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/11/epa-backs-away-from-gm-claim-of-230-mpg-for-volt/

[23] Spinning Our Wheels

[24] EPA label for Chevy Volt: 93 MPGe EV Mode, 60 MPG Combined http://electric-vehicles-cars-bikes.blogspot.com/2010/11/epa-labels-for-chevy-volt-93-mpge-ev.html

[25] Accessed April 2011.

[26] Spinning Our Wheels, Page 19

[27] http://afstrinity.com/company/faq.htm#mileage

Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? Part 2

Filed Under Transportation | Comments Off

Pat Murphy         April 22, 2011

The Return of the Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)

Most of the ZEVs (or BEVs) from the late 1990s were manufactured at the beginning of the CARB ZEV program. There were no additional new designs during that time period. There was a change from Lead Acid batteries to Nickel Metal Hydride batteries which increased the mileage per charge. As noted earlier, the major manufacturers withdrew from the business as soon as CARB changed its rules, so 2001 or 2002 may have been the last year for any ZEV upgrades, marking the end of ZEV/BEV development.

There were exceptions. A start up company, Tesla Motors, was formed in 2003 to make a new version of the BEV using a different battery technology. (Note that all ZEVs made under the CARB program were also BEVs). Lithium Ion battery technology offers a much higher density of charge, about twice that of Nickel Metal Hydride. Lithium batteries had become widely used for consumer products. The first Tesla car was shown to the public in 2006 and its first product, the Tesla Roadster was delivered in early 2008. By the end of 2010, the company had shipped over 1,500 cars, more than any other BEV model from any of the seven companies that offered a CARB ZEV. In 2009, BMW developed the Mini-E program which provided 450 of its Mini car converted to BEVs using Lithium Ion batteries. These were not production models but test cars. 200 were shipped to Southern California and 250 to New York and New Jersey. [1]

After the dormant period of the early 2000s, large manufacturers began developing new models of the EV, based possibly on Telsa’s success but more important on a renewed push from the U.S. government. If the RAV4 EV represents the best model of the first generation EVs from the late 1990s, the representative for a second generation mass produced BEV is the recently shipped Nissan Leaf (December 2010), a car whose size is close to that of the RAV4 EV. Nissan sold about 4,000 Leafs in the first quarter of 2011,[2] sizable compared to 5,000 – 6,000 ZEV sales of all manufacturers over the five year period from 1997-2001. The U.S. government loaned Nissan $1.4 billion for its Smyrna, Tennessee manufacturing facility.[3] Nissan is not the only recipient of U.S. government financial support. The Department of Energy (DOE) has approved direct loans to Nissan, Ford, Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive totaling about $8 billion out of a budget of $25 billion. Other DOE campaigns include $2.4 billion given to battery and electric vehicle component manufacturers and $4 billion for “smart grid” projects to support EV charging. [4] [5]

The electric car was born when California’s CARB agency passed laws requiring manufacturers to build Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs). The Bush administration supported the revocation of the CARB mandate in 2002, thereby helping kill the program. The Obama administration has reversed that position. Rather than simply requiring that manufacturers offer the cars, the U.S. government today is financing the development and the marketing, with a $7,500 rebate for every electric car purchased. Climate change was the main rationale for the Obama redirection. But electric cars are not as effective in reducing CO₂ emissions as is popularly thought.

Reviewing mileage numbers:

The EPA fueleconomy.org web site shows the mileage numbers for the Leaf (Figure 2-1)[6]. It is similar in style to the label for the 2003 RAV4 EV shown in Part 1 of this blog  series (figure 1-3 Part 1).

Figure 2-1: Leaf EPA Website Label

Figure 2-2 shows the EPA label that is glued onto the car window of the Leaf. It has a slightly different format than the one from the EPA web site (figure 2-1) and contains more information, including cost estimates for electricity. The kWh per 100 miles is not included for the city (32 kWh) and highway (37 kWh) but only for the combination of the two (34 kWh). The two labels contain different information, which is unfortunate since the consumer must study two labels to get complete information. The EPA could do a better job of providing consistent information across all its label offerings.

Figure 2-2: Leaf EPA car label

The label illustrated in figure 2-2 shows the energy consumption in the same way as labels for earlier electric cars, that is, the number of kWh necessary to travel 100 miles. Note that the label on the car includes a reference to MPGequivilent (MPGe) saying at the bottom in fine print:

MPGequivilent: 33.7 kW-hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energy

The use of the term MPGequivilent (MPGe) and its value is extremely significant; in fact it is at the heart of the government’s mileage computation mechanism and it is vital to understand it as noted in Part 1. It has been in use by the EPA at least since 2008 when it was used to determine the mileage for the BMW Mini E electric version of its small Mini car.  (Figure 2-3) [7]

Figure 2-3: BMW Mini E from Fuel Economy Guide

The calculation for MPGe is simple. Recall that the mileage numbers on electric car labels are given in kWh (kilowatt hours) per 100 miles or kWh/100 miles. This was discussed in computing the mileage for the 2003 REV4 EV (figures 1-2, 1-3 in part 1). I use the same analysis for the Leaf.

The combined highway and city electricity usage is shown on the Leaf label as 34 kWh per 100 miles. The MPGe is computed by first dividing the 34 kWh by 100 (result = .34), inverting the answer (result = 2.94) and multiplying this number by 33.7 (the number of kWh in a gallon of gasoline). The final result is 99.1 mpg which is truncated to 99 mpg. Note that the city mileage of 106 mpg and highway of 92 mpg is calculated by using the information from the Web site (information which is not on the window label) of  32 kWh for 100 miles city and 37 kWh  per 100 miles highway. Using the same way of calculating gives a result of 105.3 mpg and 91.1 mpg. These are rounded up to 106 mpg and 92 mpg.  (As noted in Part 1, the EPA does not seem to have a consistent way of dealing with fractions, either truncating or rounding up for fractions or simply picking the next highest integer if there is a fraction of any size, as appears to be the choice in this example).

This calculation can be further simplified. The MPGe is calculated by dividing the kWh/100 miles number into 3,700. For example the combined Leaf miles per gallon is 3370/34 or 99 mpg. For city and highway (33 kWh/100 miles and 37 kWh/100 miles) the MPGe is 102 mpg (3700/33) and 94 mpg (3700/36). Table 2-1 shows the derivation of the MPGe. It is the same format and method that was developed for the RAV4 EV in part 1 (Table 1-2).

Misleading Methodology Still Used

The method of calculating mpg seems consistent for both the EVs of the late 1990s and the newest electric cars of the 2010 decade. But, as noted in Part 1, this method misrepresents the cars energy use it ignores the physics of electricity generation. It does not account for the substantial energy loss of converting fossil fuels to electricity. About 2/3 of the energy from coal, natural gas, or oil in a power plant is lost in heat, with the remaining third converted to electrical energy. Another portion is lost in transmission of the electricity from the power plant to the home or building.

The terminology used to explain the loss is “source energy” and “site energy.” These terms are explained in an EPA paper “Energy Star Performance Ratings Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Use.”[8] The explanation points out that most of the source energies (coal at the power plant) are lost in heat and the site energy (electricity at the plug) is only a fraction of the original source energy. Although prepared for buildings, it is relevant because essentially all electric cars are charged from a plug in a building somewhere – a house, an office building, or some other location. For us to use electricity, it is necessary to convert the source energy to site energy. It is important to understand that no matter how high the efficiency of the electric devices using electricity, the inefficiency of a power plant and transmission of electricity significantly reduce total energy efficiency.

A MIT report on EV mileage[9] gives the efficiency of electricity generation as 32.8% and the efficiency of electricity transmission as 92.4%. Multiplying these two numbers gives a total efficiency of 30.3%. If the car labels were accounting for energy loss in generation and transmission, the MPGequvilent number would be 10.2 kWh per gallon of gasoline (30.3% of 33.7) (a measure of the site energy) not 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline (a measure of the source energy). This new MPGe is shown in column 7 of table 2-2, which includes the information from table 1-2 of Part 1 (the RAV4 EV) and table 2-2 below (the Leaf).

Column 7 represents a far more accurate way of looking at miles per gallon equivalency since it takes into account the energy losses associated with generation and transmission. And column 7 compared to column 6 shows how much the electric car performance is overstated. However, this is still not a perfect comparison to gasoline cars since it does not include the penalty associated with deriving gasoline from oil in a refinery process nor does it include the energy transportation costs of moving gasoline from refinery to gas station. Oil refining and surface transportation from refinery to gasoline station are analogous to power plant generation from coal (and natural gas) and the transmission of electricity from power plant to building. However, the energy loss for refining oil into gasoline is much less than the energy loss for converting coal or natural gas to electricity.

Comparing Electricity and Gasoline

The same MIT report on EV mileage[10] that shows electricity generation and transmission efficiency at 30.3% also addresses the energy lost in shipping oil across the oceans, refining it and transporting the gasoline to the gasoline station. The corresponding oil to gasoline refining with transportation efficiency is 83%. Dividing 10.2 kWh (the value in column 7) by 83% provides a more accurate comparative ratio of 12.3 kWh. This decreases the performance of the gasoline car relative to the electric car. Table 2-3 incorporates this change.

Inconsistent EPA Reporting of RAV4 EV efficiency

From one year to another, the EPA changed the performance numbers of the RAV4 EV on its fuel economy website. (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/) For the years 2000 and 2001 the EPA listed the performance numbers as 29 kWh/100 miles for city and 37 kWh/100 miles for highway, which were the numbers on the RAV EV window label (Figure 1-2, part 1). The EPA reported the RAV4 EV in its Fuel Economy Guides, available on the website. In the 2002 Fuel Economy Guide, the numbers were left blank. In the 2003 Fuel Economy Guide, they were changed to 27 kWh/100 miles city and 34 kWh/100 miles highway, the numbers used for table 1-2 in Part 1.There were no numbers published in the Fuel Economy Guides after 2004 for the RAV4 EV. [11] But the current rating on the EPA web site for the 2003 RAV4 – EV is 39 city and 49 highway (Figure 2-4).[12]

Figure 2-4: EPA restated RAV4 EV mileage

It is important to reflect on the different EPA numbers for the RAV4 EV since it addresses a key argument of this paper. Table 2-3 adds the calculations for the values in figure 2-4 to the information in table 2-2.  In the “Early RAV4 EV” rows of table 2-3, the information from the original RAV4 EV window label is used (figure 1.2 of Part 1). In the “Late RAV4 EV” rows of table 2-3, the numbers from figure 2-4 are used. Column 3 shows the different performance numbers. All the data in Columns 4 – 7 are derived from the data in column 3.

Depending on which values for the RAV4 EV are chosen will determine the estimates of electric car mileage performance improvements in the 13 years from first shipments of the RAV4 EV in 1997 to the Leaf in late 2010. I tend toward the earlier numbers. It seems to me that the EPA may be changing the numbers for political reasons, not because the RAV4 EVs suddenly became less efficient. Whatever the case, the numbers in column 7 are not dramatically different. The average combined number for early and late RAV4 EV is 35 mpg (average of 29 and 41) versus 36 mpg for the Leaf.  Many had hoped there would be a major miles per kWh improvement between the two different EV generations. But this is not the case.

It is unlikely that there has been a major change in electric motor efficiency in the past 13 years. Electric motors are already highly efficient (75% versus 20% for internal combustion engines).[13] Nor have there been major improvements in power plant efficiency in the same period. On a worldwide basis power plant efficiency has only increased 16% since 1974.[14] Power plants and transmission combined is approximately 30% efficient. Combining the efficiency of power plant and electric motor gives approximately 22%. (30% of 75%). This is close to the 20% of the gasoline engines. It is quite likely that the same power plants that generated electricity for the EV1 are now generating it for the Leaf. So a major performance improvement of electric cars between the generations is not to be expected.

The modern EV is represented by an increase in battery capacity, the Lithium Ion batteries having about twice the capacity (in terms of weight and volume) to store energy than the nickel metal hydride ones they replaced. But there is no clear efficiency advantage or CO₂ reduction; there is no “breakthrough” in electric motors. Thus the recent EVs are analogous to adding a larger gas tank to a car so it can be driven more miles.

There is no doubt that the mpg numbers for electric cars are grossly overstated. And that in any evaluation that reflects energy used to generate electricity, the electric cars are actually less efficient than high mileage hybrid cars, a topic that will be analyzed later. The hyperbole for the electric vehicle is excessive and it is questionable if these cars, BEV or PHEV, will ever replace the internal combustion engine.

The next section will discuss the evolution and performance numbers of the PHEV.

---

[1] http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/2009symposium/presentations/steinberg.pdf

[2] Nissan Leaf sales hit 3,657; that’s like four times more than the Chevy Volt by Eric Loveday, March 11,  2011 http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/11/nissan-leaf-sales-3657-four-times-more-chevy-volt/

[3] Plant for Nissan’s Leaf Gets a $1.4 Billion DOE Loan by Saqib Rahim, New York Times, January 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/29/29climatewire-plant-for-nissans-leaf-gets-a-14-billion-doe-13657.html

[4] In Role as Kingmaker, the Energy Department Stifles Innovation by Darryl Siry, Wired, December 1, 2009 http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/12/doe-loans-stifle-innovation/

[5] First Fisker Karma Plug-In Rolls Off the Line by Chuck Squatriglia, Wired, March 22, 2011 http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/03/first-fisker-karma-plug-in-rolls-off-the-line/

[6] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

[7] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2008.pdf

[8] Energy Star Performance Ratings Methodology for Incorporating Source Energy Usage, August 2009,

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf

[9] Fuel Economy Numbers for Electric Vehicles, Prepared by: MIT Electric Vehicle Team, March 2008 http://mit.edu/evt/summary_mpgge.pdf

[10] Fuel Economy Numbers for Electric Vehicles, Prepared by: MIT Electric Vehicle Team, March 2008 http://mit.edu/evt/summary_mpgge.pdf

[11] Download Fuel Economy Data Years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004-2009 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

[12] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectEngine.jsp?year=2003&make=Toyota&model=RAV4%20EV

[13] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

[14] (Energy Technologies Perspective 2006 Scenarios and Strategies to 2050 International Energy Agency./OECD 2006 table 4.5 page 179

Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? – Part 1 The ZEV

Filed Under Transportation | Comments Off

Pat Murphy April 5, 2011

The 1990s Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Program

The 2006 documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” [1] portrays General Motors (GM) as a corporate villain who missed a historical opportunity to make exciting, fun to drive, non-polluting electric cars. The charge was based on GM’s decision to cancel its Electric Vehicle 1 (EV1) program in 2003. The GM EV1 effort began in response to a 1990 mandate from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requiring that Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) make up at least 2% of new car sales by 1998, 5% by 2001 and 10% by 2003.[2] CARB’s radical emission limitation policy came from its knowledge of a demonstration electric car, the Impact, built for GM under contract from Aeroenvironment. GM Chairman Roger Smith demonstrated the Impact in early 1990 and was supportive of the ZEV concept.[3] The Impact was not only an impetus for the CARB action but also the basis for the GM EV1, the first ZEV model delivered in late 1996. Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan also began producing ZEVs to meet the CARB requirements. Note that ZEVs as defined meant that no emissions were generated directly from the car.  Emissions from power plants that produced the electricity for the car were ignored. CARB eliminated the 2% and 5% ramp-up targets in 1996, leaving only the 10% requirement in place for 2003.

In 2001, after eleven different ZEV models had been delivered, CARB proposed modifying the program to allow partial credits for extremely clean vehicles known as “partial zero emissions vehicles (PZEV) and “advanced technology partial ZEVs” (AT PZEVs) which would include hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight as well as other kinds of cars. This proposed extension of the ZEV program was controversial. In January 2002, GM, DaimlerChrysler and several California car dealers filed a federal lawsuit against CARB alleging the new ZEV rules violated a federal law barring states from regulating fuel economy in any way. In October 2002 the federal government filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiff automakers. In 2003 CARB changed the ZEV mandate at which point automakers immediately stopped building and selling the ZEVs and began recalling the existing ZEV vehicles (most of which had been leased). At the time there had been almost 6,000 EVs built including 800 EV1s that were leased to drivers mostly in California and Arizona. GM recalled all the EV1 from their leasers and recycled them except for a few museum models. Toyota sold some RAV4 EVs to the public and many are still being driven today. (See Table 1-1)

Table 1-1: ZEV Mandate Produced Real ZEVs

(Number made and cars still in use early 2000s) [4]

Much of the criticism about ZEVs (eventually known as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or electric vehicles (EVs) was based on their relatively short driving range between charges, along with the lack of public charging facilities. Drivers were concerned they would be stuck somewhere with depleted batteries due to the limitations of available battery technology. The EV1 (and some other electric vehicles) were first built with Lead Acid batteries and later with Nickel Metal Hydride batteries, which – although an improvement over Lead Acid batteries – still had limited range.

Measuring EV performance – Early History

When the original ZEV program began in California, automobile gas mileage was not the main issue. The overwhelming problem concerned emissions from burning fossil fuel. CARB’s main program was called the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV), not the Electric Vehicle program. The Los Angeles area was badly affected by smog and the hope was to move emissions out to far away power plants. Miles per gallon was not the challenge. Note that 80% of electric cars sold in the U.S. during the CARB ZEV period were in California.

It is important to understand the claims for miles per gallon performance of electric cars, both conventional (BEV) and pluggable (PHEV). The ideal comparison car from the CARB era to establish mileage performance is the still operational Toyota RAV4 EV. This car is evaluated here rather than the GM EV1 because EV1 models were recycled so can no longer be tested while many RAV4 EVs are still being driven on a daily basis. Figure 1-1 shows the original label for the GM EV1, interesting for historical reasons. Note it was a more efficient car than the RAV4 EV as measured by the 30 and 25 kWh for 100 miles displayed on the label.[5]

Figure 1 -1: EV 1 Window Label

Figure 1-2 shows the RAV4 EV original label[6], showing mileage data for city and highway, similar to the label format for the GM EV1. Note in both cases the performance numbers are shown in kilowatt hours (kWh) per 100 miles (EV1 30 and 25, RAV4 EV 27 and 34), a representation that is different from gasoline or diesel cars which show miles per gallon, the historical way of measuring mileage performance. This unfortunately adds to the label confusion.

Figure 1-2: 2002 RAV4 – EV – Window label

In both these examples, there is little misleading about the labels. They show the miles delivered from kilowatt hours (kWh) a reasonable scientific approach to measurements.

Misrepresenting ZEV performance data

At some point the method of measurement changed. The EPA devised a method of converting the kWh numbers per 100 miles for the RAV4 EV to conventional miles per gallon. Figure 1-3 is an example of an early calculation from the EPA web site REFERENCE for the 2003 RAV4 EV model.[7] It does not show the kilowatt hours but only miles per gallon – a questionable format for an electric car that does not use gallons of anything. However, the numbers are impressive – a combined average of 112 mpg!! It was results like this that resulted in much of the enthusiasm from EV supporters.

Figure 1-3: RAV4 EV from EPA web site

It is important to understand how the EPA calculated gasoline mileage for a car that does not use gasoline. The methodology can be determined from the numbers on the original RAV4 EV label (Figure 1-2) that shows 27 kWh and 34 kWh per 100 miles for city and highway respectively. The method of calculation is illustrated in table 1-2. The first column of this table lists the year and model. The second column of the table (Mode) shows that there are three kinds of measures – one for city driving, one for highway driving and one for a combination of city and highway. The third column (kWh per 100 miles) shows the kWh from the original RAV4 EV 2002 model year (figure 2) which is 27 kWh for 100 miles of city driving and 34 kWh for 100 miles of highway driving. The fourth column (kWh per mile) derives the kWh for a single mile by dividing the number in column 2 by 100. Column 5 (Miles per kWh invrs.) is calculated by inverting the value from column 4, that is, dividing the number 1 by the number in column 4. This changes the numbers from “kWh per mile” (column 4) to “miles per kWh” (column 5), the same method of representation as the current format of miles per gallon of gasoline.

Table 1– 2: Original 2003 RAV 4 EV EPA Mileage

Column 6 “33.7 (ratio) gas to kWh” shows the result of multiplying the miles per kWh entry in column 5 by 33.7. (33.7 is the number of kilowatt hours (kWh) in a gallon of gasoline.) Column 6, “33.7 Rounded”, also rounds up or truncates the numbers from the multiplication. The result in column six gives the 125 and 100 numbers with no decimal places, apparently to make it easier for the consumer to understand.  Sometimes it appears that values were rounded up by one of there was a decimal fraction, for example the 100 mpg in figure 1-3 versus the 99 mpg in table 1-2.

The significance of these numbers and the methodology is that the result miles per gallon are outstanding – near 100 mpg or about three times the mileage of a conventional car. This impressive mileage improvement helped to provide the impetus for the continued investment in battery cars. Unfortunately, it is significantly overstated as will be shown in a subsequent section.

The EPA revises the miles per gallon numbers on its web site. Unfortunately one can find contradictory information. This is shown in figure 1-4. This figure is a recent comparison of mileage for an electric RAV4 and a gasoline RAV4. (The Toyota RAV4 was made as a gasoline version and as an electric car.) The electric numbers are lower than the ones in figure 1-3 and reflect changing EPA evaluations. But the importance of figure 1-4 is the more than three to one mileage (3.3) advantage for the electric version.

Figure 1 – 4

How can two models of the same car have a three to one difference between the electric version and the regular version? The reason is the way the EPA interprets the number of 33.7 kWh as the equivalent number of kilowatt hours (kWh) in a gallon of gasoline. It does not consider the energy lost in generating electricity, which is about 2/3 rd of the total energy. Dividing the electric mpg by three would be a much more accurate representative comparison. This is discussed in more detail in a subsequent section.

The Real EV Killer

The real killer of the EV in the late 1990s was not incompetence or malfeasance on the part of GM and other car companies but rather the success of the Toyota Prius, the Honda Insight, and later the Honda Civic Hybrid. The first Prius was shipped in late 1997, only one year after the shipment of the first GM EV1. In 2000 both the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight became available in North America. The Honda Civic Hybrid was introduced in the U.S. in 2002. The first-generation Honda Insight was produced from 1999 until 2006 as a two seat three-door hatchback.

The U.S. government had an indirect role in the success of the Japanese hybrids. In 1993 the government and the three major U.S. automobile manufacturers formed the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) to develop advanced high mileage cars such as diesel hybrids.[8] The program was limited to American car manufacturers. In 1994, Toyota began the G21 low emissions vehicles project, partially in response to being excluded from the PNGV. At about the same time, Honda began the development of the Insight. The Toyota G21 concept car was shown in 1995 and in 1997 the Prius went on sale in Japan, with first year sales of 18,000. In August, 2000 the Prius was launched in the U.S. as a 2001 model, with a price of about $20,000. There were 5,562 Prius sales in U.S. during the August-December 2000 period, roughly the same number as all the EVs shipped during the 1996 – 2000 period. U.S. Prius sales were 15,556 in 2001 and 20,119 in 2002. Figure 1-5 shows the success of the Toyota and Honda hybrids (HEV) compared to the ZEV offerings.

Figure 1-5

The Prius and Insight were available for purchase for almost the entire period of the CARB ZEV program. (The first EV1 was delivered in 1996. The first Prius was delivered in 1997.) CARB soon became aware of the hybrid as an alternative to the ZEV cars. The organization was undoubtedly aware of the market success of the Prius as compared to the ZEVs. It was the CARB decision to include other kinds of cars in the ZEV program, calling them PZEV for Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles, that led to the lawsuit by the manufacturers. The hybrid was clearly a better solution to the emissions problem than the ZEVs. The success of the Prius since that time shows the decision was reasonable.

---

[1] http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

[2] http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/background.htm

[3] http://www.avinc.com/engineering/ev1

[4] http://images.pluginamerica.org/PIA_CARB_sep06.pdf

[5] How Should the Chevy Volt’s mpg be Calculated? By Lyle, Sep 6, 2008

http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/06/how-should-the-chevy-volts-mpg-be-calculated/

[6] http://www.evnut.com/rav.htm

[7] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19296.shtml

[8] http://www.pngv.org

A Summary of Transition

Filed Under Transition | 3 Comments

Pat Murphy                March 21, 2011

Developing this eight part critique on the Transition movement via a series of blog entries has been highly educational. I had hoped to do one more on the topic of relocalization but other demands on my time require that it be deferred. I feel the existing blogs provide a sufficient review of the Transition Movement.

For this final post, I will focus my comments on some of Transition’s strategic principles. After all, at the end of the day, people’s question about Transition may be “So do you like it or not?” However, the question I ask myself is “Is Transition an important movement for the U.S. that will help us address Peak Oil and Climate Change?” I have four considerations in answer to this which are:

Transition’s Success Claims

Cheerful Disclaimer Commentary

Collective Genius Argument

What next for Transition

Transition’s Success Claims

Transition leaders’ claims of success are largely a function of its supposedly “explosive” growth. The dual threats to humanity from Peak Oil and Climate Change are significant and I feel strongly that people should not be misled with exaggerated marketing statements. They need factual verifiable information. Recently I made my weekly visit to the Transition US web site where I observed a one hour video presentation by official Transition trainer Tina Clarke made in February 2011 at Greenfield Community College in Massachusetts. She opened her talk with the comment “There are a thousand communities in the UK where this whole thing started and there are thousands more around the world.”[1] She referenced  transitionnetwork.org which shows 352 initiatives worldwide, 200 of them in the UK as of March 1, 2011.[2] By Transition records, there are hundreds (not thousands) of communities that have started Transition Initiatives; but the Transition leadership constantly and consistently refers to thousands of communities. It is very difficult for me to accept this level of hyperbole. If Transition cannot succeed based on its actual record but requires an order of magnitude exaggeration, then its future is dubious.

Cheerful Disclaimer Commentary

The Transition U.S. Vision, Mission, and Strategic Action Plan include the “Cheerful Disclaimer” restated here. [3]

Cheerful Disclaimer - Just in case you were under the impression that Transition is a process defined by people who have all the answers, you need to be aware of a key fact. We truly don’t know if this will work. Transition is a social experiment on a massive scale. What we are convinced of is this:

If we wait for the governments, it’ll be too little, too late

If we act as individuals, it’ll be too little

But if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time.

The Cheerful Disclaimer acknowledges that Transition is a social experiment. But more important in the statement is a core principle that questions the contribution of individuals and governments. In my talks to Transition groups and others, I discuss what key individuals are doing, particularly individuals in my local community of Yellow Springs. I also explain important programs and activities of the U.S. government and non profit organizational efforts. More often than not, someone in the audience queries this, wondering why I bring up government and individuals since Transition focuses on the community to their exclusion. I cannot accept this particular Transition perspective, particularly in the U.S.

In one sense, the whole Peak Oil movement is the work of extraordinary individuals starting with M. King Hubbert in the U.S. and continuing with people like J. Gever, R, Kaufman, D Skole and C. Vorosmarty (authors of the 1986 book Beyond Oil)[4],  Matt Simmons, Ken Deffeyes, Steve Andrews, Randy Udall, Michael Klare, Richard Heinberg, and Michael Ruppert, to mention some early pioneers. There are a few dozen other U.S. authors and key activists who are the leaders of this movement. Even Rob Hopkins’ personal significant contribution seems a contradiction to the idea that individual efforts will be too little. In terms of climate change, the leading figures in the U.S. are individuals such as James Hansen and Bill McGibbon. They are backed up by researchers in climate change, many (if not most) of whom are directly or indirectly funded by national governments. To date, most of the efforts have been by governments and individuals and small non profits – there has been little “local community” involvement in the sense that Transition uses it.

Solutions are also coming from individuals, both those in government and without. Consider the work of the Passive House movement (highly individualistic Germans and Americans) and the Building America high performance building program (government backed). The dynamic shared transport movement springs very much from innovative individuals such as Sean O’Sullivan (entrepreneur) of Avego in Ireland. David Pimentel (educator) is a classic individual contributor with his many decades long analysis of energy and food. There are many more.

One could easily interpret the Cheerful Disclaimer statement to imply that Transition may possibly be the only viable alternative to disaster, since no one else is trying to organize communities as they are. Transition proposes to be unique, which it is, and that may be its appeal. However, it gives the impression that its supporters have the only solutions (or the ways of finding them) with all others being likely to fail. The missionary zeal that accompanies its uniqueness is disquieting. Some Transition advocates have reacted negatively to my examples of good government programs and some absolutely heroic individual efforts. The devaluation of individual work is surprising and the assumption that governments cannot or will not make a contribution is naive.

One possible result is a separation between Transition advocates and the activists who are working directly on the core issue of climate change and peak oil – consumption. Governments, individuals and non profits will continue to go about their business of reducing energy – knowing that in doing so society is likely to change dramatically. I live in the community of Yellow Springs (population 3,500), which is taking important steps to curtail fossil fuel use – steps supported by the local government. This is happening without an Energy Descent Action Plan. We have six passive house homes and retrofits underway, three farmers markets and several CSAs.

Collective Genius Argument

The Vision and Mission of Transition is stated as follows:

Vision – Our vision is that every community in the United States has engaged its collective creativity to unleash an extraordinary and historic transition to a future beyond fossil fuels; a future that is more vibrant, abundant and resilient; one that is ultimately preferable to the present.

Mission – Transition US is a resource and catalyst for building resilient communities across the United States that are able to withstand severe energy, climate or economic shocks while creating a better quality of life in the process. We will accomplish our mission by inspiring, encouraging, supporting, networking and training individuals and their communities as they consider, adopt, adapt, and implement the Transition approach to community empowerment and change. The Transition approach is based on four key assumptions:

That life with dramatically lower energy consumption is inevitable, and that it’s better to plan for it than to be taken by surprise

That our communities currently lack resilience

That we have to act collectively, and we have to act now to build community resilience and prepare for life without fossil fuels

That by unleashing the collective genius of our communities it is possible to design new ways of living that are more nourishing, fulfilling and ecologically sustainable

The Vision statement emphasizes the need for a community to have “engaged its collective creativity.” The first three assumptions in the Mission statement discuss the “problem,” the “need for resilience” (which I covered in depth in an earlier blog entry) and the “need to act collectively” within a geographic community. The fourth and final assumption says “that by unleashing the collective genius of our communities it is possible to design new ways of living that are more nourishing, fulfilling and ecologically sustainable.”

Unleashing the collective genius and engaged its collective creativity seem to be the core principles of the Transition program. The Handbook and many other Transition documents describe the process of how to do this – to some extent it is a formula for change. And the Energy Descent Action Plan (EDAP) is the final product of Transition’s 12 step program. These principles are a statement of belief about how people work together, which is not my personal experience. I have had very fulfilling jobs in multiple occupations and have had wonderful relations with people and organizations in a wide variety of circumstances addressing a myriad set of opportunities and problems. I have never experienced this kind of group metamorphism and am not sure it is possible. In my experience, in any group of ordinary people some useful ideas may arise in a visioning or brainstorming type of process. But more often, innovations and solutions tend to come from a unique minority of people of extraordinary ability or insight. In many cases group thinking from average people has been insufficient to solve complex problems. The names mentioned earlier, including Rob Hopkins, illustrate my point.

As part of its program, Transition emphasizes the necessity of “engaging the whole (or entire) community.” This “whole collective community” unleashing concept was not proven in Totnes. Analysis shows it to be far less than the entire community, maybe 800 people[5] in the Totnes and District area out of a population of 24,000 people. I suspect it may well be the reason why so few EDAPs have been completed. Transition promises success if one follows its rules or patterns or ingredients (while allowing local customization) which will unleash the creativity of the community to define unique solutions. If the EDAP never gets written or if it is not effective, the Transition group might falter. I wonder if Totnes has experienced an unleashing of its creative genius as exemplified in the plan or possibly since the plan was published almost a year ago. Little is written about it. This view of the way people cooperate is a risky bet on the future.

What next with Transition

Undoubtedly the lack of a worldwide unleashing of community creativity in completing EDAPS must be apparent to Rob Hopkins and he may well be devising a new strategy. A hint of this is seen in a recent blog[6] in which he says (under “The Challenge”) “Creating an Energy Descent Action Plan and/or the intentional relocalization of a community will raise a lot of questions.”  This “and/or” statement may imply a shift away from the EDAP focus to something less ambitious. I know of two U.S. Transition Initiatives that are abandoning the EDAP as too complex and unlikely to succeed. Rob’s new approach may be explained in a book he began in June, 2010 after the completion of the Totnes EDAP.[7] [8] This book, a sequel to the Transition Handbook, is in the format of Christopher Alexander’s 1977 book A Pattern Language.[9] The proposed title is The Transition Companion: making your community more resilient in uncertain times.” [10] [11] Preliminary publication date is September 2011.

Transition leaders’ hope of taking the primary leadership role for the nation and the world in addressing Peak Oil and Climate Change is doubtful. Their dream of “engaging the whole community” to transform society is more difficult than anticipated. Transition Initiatives may become just another special interest group addressing peak oil and climate change, but with a strong emphasis on a wide range of permaculture activities and options. As noted above, Transition seems to be moving away from EDAPs or at least extending the completion of the EDAP to some future time. It would be a shame if Transition ended up becoming a blogging network of philosophy and local interest reports that do not adequately prepare the U.S. for the coming changes. My hope is that it becomes better grounded in what it can actually accomplish and that its leadership stops overstating its capabilities and results.

Transition groups, be they small (2 or 3 people) or larger, are part of the answer. I would hope that they would not see themselves as in competition for the hearts and minds of other people who are also taking action to reduce CO₂ and fossil fuel consumption but who are not attempting to create a new culture. Such people are working within the limits of their community and some are working with their elected officials and utilizing state and national programs. Our problems are too complex for a “one size fits all” approach.

---

[1] http://www.transitionus.org/stories/february-round-whats-happening-world-transition-us-edition

[2] http://www.transitionnetwork.org/initiatives/by-number

[3] http://www.transitionus.org/mission

[4] Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades J. Gever, R, Kaufman, D Skole and C. Vorosmarty  Ballinger Pub Co Jan 1986

[5] http://transitionculture.org/2010/11/23/new-report-so-what-does-transition-town-totnes-actually-do/

[6] Ingredients of Transition: Strategic Thinking March 3, 2011 http://transitionculture.org/2011/03/03/ingredients-of-transition-strategic-thinking/

[7] Rethinking Transition as a Pattern Language: an introduction June 4, 2010 http://transitionculture.org/2010/06/04/rethinking-transition-as-a-pattern-language-an-introduction/

[8] Starting Monday: Will You Help With Re-Writing the Transition Handbook? Sept. 17, 2010

http://transitionculture.org/2010/09/17/will-you-help-with-re-writing-the-transition-handbook/

[9] An interview with Christopher Alexander Dec 23, 2010 http://transitionculture.org/2010/12/23/exclusive-to-transition-culture-an-interview-with-christopher-alexander/

[10] Your help needed with naming the sequel to ‘Transition Handbook’ Jan 10 2011 http://transitionculture.org/2011/01/10/your-help-needed-with-naming-the-sequel-to-transition-handbook/

[11] Seeking photos that capture the spirit of Transition Feb 17, 2011

http://transitionculture.org/2011/02/17/seeking-photos-that-capture-the-spirit-of-transition/

Transition and Permaculture

Filed Under Transition | 1 Comment

Pat Murphy  March 4, 2011

Permaculture stands for Permanent Culture and/or Permanent Agriculture. It is defined as a design system for the creation of sustainable human settlements and is at the heart of the Transition movement. Transition founder Rob Hopkins notes:

“I love permaculture dearly. I did my Design Course in 1992, and have been a teacher of it since 1997. I live, breathe and dream permaculture. It is family. It is in my DNA.”[1]

Rob states that he developed the first full time permaculture course in the world in 2001 at the Kinsale College of Future Education in Ireland.[2] [3] He taught this course until 2005, at which time he moved to Totnes, England. The course at Kinsale continues under the direction of Graham Strouts.[4]

Permaculture was founded by Bill Mollison in Australia in the late 1970s. The original written works were done with the help of David Holmgren, who is frequently referred to as the “Co-Originator of the Permaculture Concept”. The first two books were titled Permaculture One (1978) and Permaculture Two (1979). Mollison founded the Permaculture Institute in 1979 and authored another classic work Permaculture: A Designers Manual which was published in 1988. Mollison is less active in the movement now, being in his mid 80s. David Holmgren is still very active and wrote another seminal book Permaculture Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability which was published in 2002. Permaculture as a concept and a philosophy is about 33 years old.

David Holmgren’s work represents the most up to date perspective on Permaculture. According to him three ethics are central to permaculture, which are:

1 – Care for the earth

2 – Care for people

3 – Fair share

These ethics are the foundation of permaculture and, as pointed out by Holmgren, are frequently found in traditional less industrialized societies.

For people who have not read Holmgren’s books, I have included several lists of permaculture principles starting with the 12 principles of permaculture as he defines them:

Observe and Interact – “Beauty is in the mind of the beholder” – By taking the time to engage with nature we can design solutions that suit our particular situation.

Catch and Store Energy – “Make hay while the sun shines” – By developing systems that collect resources when they are abundant, we can use them in times of need.

Obtain a Yield – “You can’t work on an empty stomach” – Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the working you are doing.

Apply Self Regulation and Accept Feedback – “The sins of the fathers are visited on the children of the seventh generation” – We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well. Negative feedback is often slow to emerge.

Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services – “Let nature take its course” – Make the best use of nature’s abundance to reduce our consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable resources.

Produce No Waste – “Waste not, want not” or “A stitch in time saves nine” – By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.

Design from Patterns to Details – “Can’t see the forest for the trees” – By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go.

Integrate Rather Than Segregate – “Many hands make light work” – By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.

Use Small and Slow Solutions – “Slow and steady wins the race” or “The bigger they are, the harder they fall” – Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones, making better use of local resources and produce more sustainable outcomes.

Use and Value Diversity – “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” – Diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides.

Use Edges and Value the Marginal – “Don’t think you are on the right track just because it’s a well-beaten path” – The interface between things is where the most interesting events take place. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system.

Creatively Use and Respond to Change – “Vision is not seeing things as they are but as they will be” – We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing and then intervening at the right time.

There are other categories to the system which are sometimes described in a well known graphic, the Permaculture Flower.[5] The flower has a set of seven categories listed below which include brief descriptions of each categories’ principles.

Building

Passive solar design – Sun oriented glazing and shading, thermal mass, passive venting.

Natural construction materials – Earth, straw-bale, lime plaster, round pole, stone.

Water harvesting & Waste Reuse – Water tanks, compost toilets and reedbeds.

Biotechture – The manipulation of tree form to grow structures and buildings.

Earth sheltered construction – “Earthships” and other designs that build into the ground.

Natural disaster resistant construction – Bushfire, wind, flood & earthquake.

Owner building – Empowerment and financial autonomy of residents and communities in constructing their own housing using accessible technologies and materials.

Pattern Language – Organic design theory and tools of Christopher Alexander.

Tools & Technology

Reuse & creative recycling – Decentralized and context specific reuse of materials through craft, rather than centralized industrial processes.

Hand tools – Recovery and maintenance of traditional tools and skills.

Bicycles & electric bikes – Human powered and assisted transport that improves the efficiency of the human body.

Efficient & low pollution wood stoves – Rocket and other stove designs using simple materials and local construction.

Fuels from organic wastes – Bio-diesel, methanol, biogas and wood gas for local cooking, electricity and transport.

Wood gasification – Efficient and carbon neutral fuel for local electric power and vehicle transport.

Bio-char from forest wastes – Charcoal soil improver and carbon capture.

Co-generation – Use of fuel to generate electricity and provide heat for on-site use.

Micro-hydro & small scale wind – Simple renewable technologies for remote and local grid power.

Grid-tied renewable power generation – Use of the electric grid as a “battery” for localized power generation.

Energy storage – Heat banks, pumped storage (water), compressed air, and other simple temporary stores of energy.

Transition engineering – Re-localization of the maintenance, retrofit and redesign of infrastructure and technology.

Education & Culture

Homeschooling – Parents as natural teachers of children within the household economy.

Waldorf education – Schools based on the educational methods of Rudolf Steiner.

Participatory arts & music – Reclaiming our place as actors/musicians rather than spectators.

Social ecology – Philosophy focused on the redesign of society using ecological principles.

Action learning – A reflective process of progressive problem solving that accepts the observer as a part of the system being studied.

Transition culture – An evolving exploration of the head, heart and hand of energy descent.

Health & Spiritual Well-Being

Home birth & breast feeding – Reclaiming birth and infant nutrition as part of the economy of nature and the household.

Complementary & holistic medicine – A wide spectrum of approaches to health care outside of conventional allopathic medicine.

Yoga, Tai Chi & other body/mind/spirit disciplines – The maintenance of health through regular designed exercises based on eastern traditions.

Spirit of place, indigenous cultural revival – Reconnection of spiritual and cultural values to place and “country”.

Dying with dignity – Movement to reclaim dying from institutionalized medicine.

Finances & Economics

Local & regional currencies – Interest-free money systems that serve a defined and limited territory.

Carpooling, ride sharing & car share – Rebuilding community by more efficient use of existing cars and roads.

Ethical investment & fair trade – Using the power of investment and consumption to drive equitable economies.

Farmers markets & community supported agriculture (CSA) – Direct connection and contracting between producers and consumers without the middlemen.

WWOOFing & similar networks – Voluntary exchange of work for food, accommodation and experience of ecological living.

Tradable energy quotas – A parallel currency to allow equitable distribution and trade of the right to consume and pollute.

Life cycle analysis & ‘emergy’ accounting – Holistic methods for measuring the full costs and benefits of existing and new technologies and economies.

Land Tenure & Community Governance

Cooperatives & Body Corporates – Legal structures for collective ownership and management of land, buildings and other assets.

Cohousing & Ecovillages – Ecologically designed communities where residents are bound together by some degree of shared ownership and organization.

Open Space Technology & Consensus Decision Making – Collaborative tools for sharing knowledge and reaching decisions.

Native Title & Traditional Use Rights – Traditional ways of non-exclusive use of land and resources, recognized in law.

Land & Nature Stewardship

Bio-intensive gardening – Use of compost, double digging, companion planting and natural pest control to produce the maximum amount of food in the minimum area.

Forest gardening – Producing food from trees, perennial and annual plants in a system that mimics a natural forest.

Seed saving – Collecting and storing seeds, often with the aim of maintaining certain strains.

Organic agriculture – Commercial agriculture that uses natural fertilizers and pest control methods.

Biodynamics – A system of organic agriculture and gardening based on the work of Rudolf Steiner.

Natural farming – A Japanese system of organic agriculture involving minimal or no use of tillage and animal manures, most notably associated with Masanobu Fukuoka.

Keyline water harvesting – A system of landscape analysis, water harvesting and soil development using dams, channels and soil condition ploughing, developed by P.A.Yeomans.

Holistic rangeland management – A system that uses intensive rotational grazing of livestock to sustainably manage land and provide animal yields, developed and taught by Allan Savory.

Natural sequence farming – A system of gabions, revegetation, and swales, to restore health and productivity of floodplains, developed by Peter Andrews.

Agroforestry – Integrated production of pastures and/or crops with timber and/or tree crops.

Nature-based forestry – Sustainable forestry that uses mixed species, long rotations, minimal impact harvesting and natural regeneration in wild and planted timber forests.

Integrated aquaculture – Aquatic systems that provide most of the food for harvested fish and/or other animals.

Wild harvesting & hunting – Gathering food and other yields from wild plants and animals.

Gleaning – Gathering of food wasted by commercial production.

As I reviewed these, it became apparent to me that I have spent a good part of my life involved with these kinds of “sustainability” principles and activities in one form or another including intentional communities, environmental activities and living in small towns. Many of these principles are represented in the way of life of people in third world countries. They are found in many groups in the Intentional Communities movement. In one sense they form the basis for a concept of a different culture and in another sense they are a set of attributes that could define any culture.

My main question with permaculture is not so much “what is permaculture” but rather “where are the human settlements?” that are based on permaculture. (Recall Permaculture has been around for more than three decades). There are few such settlements in the U.S. and the ones I have visited or read about are quite small. I visited Earthaven in North Carolina in 2005 and the School of Future Education in Kinsale in 2009. And I visited two permaculture sites in Cuba during my three trips there to make the film “The Power of Community – How Cuba Survived Peak Oil”. In most places, the work done was more demonstrative than practical.

Many people say that permaculture is highly theoretical. Rob Hopkins addressed this in response to a 2009 blog by well known author and blogger Sharon Astyk by commenting as follows:

“Permaculture has, for a long time, been good at making big claims… I’m sure, at various times, I have been as guilty of this as anyone.  ‘Permaculture can feed the world’, ‘permaculture is more productive than intensive farming’, ‘we definitely know that permaculture works’.”

Rob then describes his experience in teaching about the advantages of chicken greenhouses and discovering neither he nor other fellow teachers had actually ever seen one. He goes on to comment on the approach:

“Yet there it is as a design classic that we tell people definitely works. There are others; is mulching the best technique in temperate zones, is forest gardening really as low maintenance as it is often presented, are permaculture gardens based on a preponderance of perennial plants anywhere near as productive as traditional market gardening?”

“What has long concerned me is that there are lots of people out there in permaculture, all with great motivation and intention, disseminating things which may or may not work, and not enough people actually rigorously testing it, revisiting projects, documenting successes and failures, and being honest about them.  Misperceptions and half-truths become enshrined as fact.”

Rob talks more about how little first hand testable research is taking place. He recalls that Bill Mollison’s message was that “we just need to do stuff”. He goes on to say:

“…..He (Mollison) famously said ‘if (we) lose the universities we lose nothing, if we lose the forests, we lose everything’.  Yes, fair point, but to me it implied a rejection of the idea of research and measurement, and as a result, we have a movement of doers, and very little measurement, and not enough self criticism and self reflection.  .….There is an old joke that runs thus; how many permaculturists does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: 14 – One to change the bulb and 13 to run light bulb changing workshops.”

Rob then discussed a second built in flaw which is the inability of permaculture to present itself acceptably to the mainstream. He notes that it is rooted in an alternative culture waiting for the world to wake up and realize that permaculture holds the answers. He says:

“I think it is extraordinary that, to the best of my knowledge, there is still no landscape design consultancy out there (in the UK at least) tendering for public parks, new developments and other spaces, producing really high quality permaculture designs for edible landscapes, agroforestry plantings and skilful and productive water management in those places.  Where are the trainers taking permaculture principles into organizations?  By now there ought to be loads.”

“…. I have taught hundreds of people all I know about permaculture, especially through the course in Kinsale.  How many of them now work as permaculture design professionals?  How many of them then augmented what I had taught them with written presentation skills, graphic design skills, the skills required to run their own business?  To the best of my knowledge none, although many of them integrated various aspects of permaculture into their lives.”

It is not clear to me if permaculture is a movement with substantial historical accomplishments. It is a growing collection of ideas and practices that Holmgren believes are the best way to live in a sustainable manner, which I appreciate. His lists are very diverse, bringing under Permaculture’s umbrella Rudolf Steiner’s biodynamic agriculture and Waldorf education as well as Chris Alexander’s Pattern Language. There is carpooling and ridesharing, agroforestry and nature-based forestry, organic agriculture and natural farming, passive solar building and biotecture, to call out a few. Some of the categories have been added recently. Maybe in a few years the German “passive house” will become part of permaculture too. The term “permaculture” seems to have become an umbrella for an extremely wide and growing range of methods and ideas. If a person does any one of the things on the list, they could call themselves a “permaculturist.” My wife has been an organic gardener for many years, but she does not call herself a permaculturist. Co-housing and Eco-villages are part of the “in” list, but not Intentional Communities. Seeing the breadth of the possibilities was eye-opening for me, as most people I know attempting permaculture are focused on food forests and no-till CSA farming.

Another part of the permaculture movement appears to be highly theoretical with most activity going into attending and/or teaching courses. I have at different times tried to create a list of productive groups with accurate metrics but have not been able to do so. As far as I can tell, the population of practicing permaculturists is extremely small and none of those who practice it use all the principles. Some do agroforestry, some organic gardening, some no-till farming, some car sharing, and some a mix from the list. This emphasizes the experimental nature of the Transition movement as noted in Transition’s “Cheerful Disclaimer”. In reading Mollison’s and Holmgren’s works, I can see that they can be taken as a collection of various paths of action with the focus to live using less energy and more in community with ones fellow citizens and nature.

In summary, permaculture appears to be an endeavor to collect many creative options and ideas from many sources under one umbrella with a unique name. It appears to be much broader in scope and less practical than portrayed in Transition literature. For this reason, although it can inspire, I am not sure if permaculture can be the basis for a worldwide movement that needs to grow rapidly to counter the dangers of peak oil and climate change.

_____________________________________
[1] http://transitionculture.org/2009/07/03/responding-to-sharon-astyk-on-permaculture-and-transition/

[2] http://www.permacultureactivist.net/articles/EnergyDescent.htm

[3] http://zone5.org/2008/05/rob-hopkins-on-permaculture-and-the-kinsale-college/

[4] http://www.kinsalefurthered.ie/permaculture_course_level2.htm

[5] http://permacultureprinciples.com/downloads/pc_flower_poster.pdf

Transition, Environmentalism and Positive Thinking

Filed Under Transition | 1 Comment

Pat Murphy  February 28, 2011

There are many positive things about the Transition Movement. It is reality based in its understanding that our problems are severe and unlikely to be solved by new kinds of technology, either conventional or “green.” Rob Hopkins, Transition’s founder, also understands that the changes will be massive in scale and scope. Transition advocates for permaculture principles which are at least grounded in the concept of a low energy and more “Agrarian” (as described by Wendell Berry and other American writers) way of living.

There are some ways in which it is not positive, the most important one being its attitude toward environmentalism. I am unaware of the history of the environmental movement in the U.K. But I am very much aware of the movement’s work in the U.S. having been a member of a dozen organizations (Sierra Club member since 1976), an environmental advocate, and a protestor/marcher/picketer.

Rob Hopkins is surprisingly critical of environmentalism. In the Transition Handbook [1] negative comments about environmentalism are common. Following are six examples:

“What might environmental campaigning look like if it strove to generate this sense of elation rather than the guilt, anger and horror that most campaigning invokes? What might it look like if it strove to inspire, enthuse and focus on possibilities rather than probabilities?” Page 15

“…the scale of this transition requires particular inner resources, not just an abstract intellectual understanding. This is relatively new ground for the environmental movement….” Page 79

“Enabling change has always been the Holy Grail of environmentalists, but it has largely remained frustratingly elusive. Although there have been successes, overall the environmental movement has failed to engage people on a large scale in the process of change, certainly not on the scale of the wartime mobilization now necessitated by peak oil and climate change.” Page 84

“A common idea in environmental campaigning is that if people know how awful things are, they will change. So the focus of many campaigns is on delivering information, often with disturbing graphic images and horror stories. Awareness raising is of crucial importance – but you only have to look at a pack of cigarettes to see the limits of this approach. The information ‘Smoking Kills’ in big letters isn’t enough to discourage most smokers.” Page 86

“It is one thing to campaign against climate change and quite another to paint a compelling vision of a post-carbon world in such a way as to enthuse others to embark on a journey towards it. We are only just beginning to scratch the surface of the power of a positive vision of an abundant future: one which is energy-lean, time-rich, less stressful, healthier and happier. Being able to associate images and a clear vision with how a powered-down future might be is essential.

I like to use the analogy of inviting a reluctant friend to join you on holiday. If you can passionately and poetically paint a mental picture of the beach, the sunset, and the candle-lit taverna by the sea, they will be more likely to come. Environmentalists have often been guilty of presenting people with a mental image of the world’s least desirable holiday accommodation – some seedy bed and breakfast near Torquay, with nylon sheets, cold tea and soggy toast – and expecting to get excited about the prospect of NOT going there. The logic and psychology are all wrong.“ Page 94

“How the Transition Approach is Different from other Environmental Approaches”. Page 135 (The table from this reference follows)

Conventional Environmentalism	The Transition Approach
Individual Behavior	Group behavior
• Single Issue	• Holistic
• Tools: lobbying, campaigning and protesting	• Tools: public participation, eco-psychology, arts, culture and creative education
• Sustainable development	• Resilience/relocalization
• Fear, guilt and shock as drivers for action	• Hope, optimism and pro-activity as drivers for action
• Changing National and International policy by lobbying	• Changing National and International policy by making them electable
• The man in the street as the problem	• The man in the street as the solution
• Blanket campaigning	• Targeted inventions
• Single level engagement	• Engagement on a variety of levels
• Prescriptive – advocates answers and responses	•Acts as a catalyst – no fixed answers
• Carbon foot printing	• Carbon foot printing plus resilience indicators
• Belief that economic growth is still possible, albeit greener growth	• Designing for economic renaissance, albeit a local one

A few months ago, I watched a TV show available on the Internet featuring Michael Brownlee and three other Transition leaders.[2] A recent film clip was shown of Hopkins, representing his more recent thoughts on the environmental movement, again comparing the environmental movement approach to a seedy bed and breakfast noting “Particularly in relation to climate change the environmental movement has really not been very skillful in catalyzing people to respond to it.” I found it significant that this particular clip was shown out of many possible ones, emphasizing the Transition bias against environmentalism.

In Rob’s response [3] to Brownlee’s article (discussed in my paper “Is Transition Still ‘Going Viral’ ”) [4] he adds some additional critical words saying:

“For me, if Transition has done one thing well over the past 4 years, it has been the designing of an approach that comes uncluttered by much of the baggage that has encumbered environmental responses over the past 30 years. These responses have often been perceived as being smug, judgmental and against lots of stuff without a very clear idea of what it is for.”

I find this a disturbing viewpoint. Many of us in the peak oil/ climate change movement are concerned – even fearful – for the future. And many of us (including me) are environmentalists. Moreover, some of the opinions presented are questionable. For example, the campaigns against cigarette smoking have not failed in the U.S. It has made particularly strong progress against formidable efforts by the cigarette industry to stop it. Its success has been based on education and lawsuits against the manufacturers. Figure 1 [5] shows this.

Figure 1

The heavy criticism of the environmental movement in the U.S. is mostly corporate based. The 2004 controversial essay entitled The Death of Environmentalism -  Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World by Shellenberger and Nordhaus [6] also said that the movement was ineffective. It ignored forces arrayed against citizens who are trying to stop the destruction of the planet. It should be noted that contributions to environmental organizations in the U.S. are in the range of $6 billion yearly. There are ten million Americans who support such organizations financially, many of whom also volunteer in different ways.

Guilt, anger, fear, shock, and horror are not the right words for the emotions of Americans who are working in defense of planetary survival. Nor do millions of people view environmentalists as smug, judgmental, ‘against’ rather than ‘for,’ and limited to abstract intellectual understanding. I think the diverse groups in the environmental movement are very clear about their purposes, and I don’t see them as radically different from the more recently formed peak oil and climate change movements.

Transition leadership should be aware that in the U.S. negative comments about environmentalists come, as I earlier stated, mostly from corporate public relations offices (oil companies, coal companies, car companies, developers, etc.). Many will recall the financial contributions of ExxonMobil (the energy company that has worked hardest to deny Peak Oil) to organizations that supported its anti-environmentalist orientation. This was a scandal exposing the world’s major oil company’s concentrated effort to damage the environmental movement.

Criticism of environmentalism is at the core an argument against direct criticism. Transition sets up a straw horse which argues that environmentalists are negative, that they have failed because of their negativity, and therefore Transition will succeed because it is positive. In a blog entry entitled “The power of positive” [7] by Joanne Poyourow she re-addresses the Michael Brownlee conflict, challenging his attitude, and recalling the “…. lively lessons we’re being sent daily from the UK and from Transition initiatives around the globe. The early Transition materials twinkle with British humor, even with abject silliness.” She adds that environmentalists have been crying “I have a nightmare” for three decades and that they are making very little progress. She then contrasts this “nightmare approach” to being positive saying:

“Positive sells. Positive is enticing. Positive action gets the blood pumping and the energy flowing, and suddenly the sense of possibilities starts growing. The hope grows, and with it, the creativity. And it’s that creativity we need to bring out and tap into if we’re going to succeed in designing a Creative Descent from this energy and consumption pinnacle.”

This “positive attitude” approach, integrated with Transitions’ repeated negative commentaries on environmentalism, fits into a pattern described well by Barbara Ehrenreich in her 2009 book  Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. [8] Ehrenreich challenges the American love affair with positive thinking and calls for a new commitment to realism. She notes that being positive has now become portrayed as the key to success and prosperity. She discusses its applicability in evangelical mega-churches that preach the good news that you only have to want something to get it, because God wants to “prosper” you. She also reviews the history of the medical profession that prescribes positive thinking for its presumed health benefits, pointing out how later research challenged all the assumptions of positive attitudes’ effect on cancer. Of great significance was the fact that Stanford psychiatrist David Spiegel reversed his 1989 work, acknowledging that support groups do not give survival advantage.

Most important she shows how bright-siding has become rooted in the business community, where the refusal even to consider negative outcomes—like mortgage defaults—contributed to the current ongoing economic crisis. Ehrenreich notes that on a personal level, positivity leads to self-blame and a preoccupation with stamping out “negative” thoughts while on a national level, it’s brought the nation to an era of irrational optimism resulting in disaster. She notes that in business if you are not positive you are criticized for not being a “team player” which can destroy one’s career.

Ehrenreich suggests that by being relentlessly upbeat we miss out on what is authentic. The positive thinking-inspired sense of entitlement helped convince homebuyers or homeowners to take out mortgages that sober, realistic second thought should have told them were not affordable. She emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, which requires skepticism, and points out that most human advancement stems from that perspective. And she warns against the dark side of this particular world view which discounts anyone who is not positive.

It is possible that environmental criticism is fundamental to Transition strategy; that is, it needs an antagonist against which to position itself. Transition strongly emphasizes positive thinking and contrasts its point of view with the supposed negative thinking of environmentalism and others. It emphasizes the importance of constantly painting a “compelling and engaging” vision of the future. However, there are far too many of us environmentalists that are working extremely hard to mitigate the risks of increasingly dangerous trends. And we reject both the idea that we have not been successful and that positive thinking is the breakthrough we need. What we need is critical thinking – and well thought out action.

———————————————————-

[1] The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience 2008 Chelsea Green

[2] Tamara Banks of Colorado Public Television Studio 12 takes a look at the Transition Cities movement http://transitionus.org/stories/studio12-transition-cities Accessed Dec 30, 2010

[3] A Critical Response to Michael Brownlee’s call for ‘Deep Transition’ by Rob Hopkins, Dec 6, 2010 http://transitionculture.org/2010/12/06/a-critical-response-to-michael-brownlees-call-for-deep-transition/

[4] http://www.communitysolution.org/blog/

[5] Gallup Update Shows Cigarette Smoking Near Historical Lows July 30, 2007 http://blog.vcu.edu/cbuttery/2007/07/

[6] The Death of Environmentalism -  Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf

[7] “The power of positive” by Joanne Poyourow http://www.transitionus.org/blog/power-positive

[8] Bright-sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America by Barbara Ehrenrich, Metropolitan Books, October, 2009

Transition and Backcasting – A New Concept – Or is it

Filed Under Transition | Comments Off

Pat Murphy      February 22, 2011

Backcasting is a key component of the Transition process for developing an Energy Descent Action Plan (EDAP). It is step 12 (or ingredient) of the 12 step Transition program. Transition U.S. defines the EDAP as follows:

“Whatever it is called, the EDAP sets out a vision of a powered-down, resilient, relocalized future, and then backcasts, in a series of practical steps, creating a map to get there from here.” [1]

Backcasting is part of the ten steps in the process of creating an EDAP spelled out in the Transition Handbook: [2] 1 – Establish a baseline, 2 – Get the Local Community Plan, 3 – The Overall Vision, 4 – Detailed Visioning, 5 – Backcast in Detail, 6 – Transition Tales, 7 – Pull Together the Back Casts into an overall plan, 8 – Create a First Draft, 9-Finalize the EDAP, and 10-Celebrate. Backcasting is prominent in steps five and seven.

In step 5 it is described as follows:

“Step 5 – Backcast in Detail. The working group then lists out a timeline of the milestones, prerequisites, activities and processes that need to be in place if the vision is to be achieved. This is also the time to define the resilience indicators that will tell you if the settlement is moving in the right direction. Using the tool of backcasting will also enable you to think through some very useful questions”.

In his summary of the Totnes plan [3] Rob notes:

“Backcasting” is the process of moving in time backwards, from a vision of the future to the present day. Participants consider the steps or visible results that would lead up to the vision. For example, if we have a vision for transportation in our community in 2030, we might start by describing that future, then back-cast to imagine the milestones we would pass on the way there. When would the downtown be reserved to foot traffic only? How might lobby groups help make that happen? How would bike sales and bike storage change over this time? What might employers do to encourage car sharing or public transit?”

In a November 2010 blog post entitled “Ingredients of Transition: Backcasting” Rob provided a more precise definition as part of the Pattern Language undertaking which says: [4]

“Backcasting is a key ingredient of the creation of an ENERGY DESCENT ACTION PLAN, and an essential companion to any process of VISIONING, if that visioning is going to stand any chance of moving beyond being fantasy. It enables clear and practical STRATEGIC PLANNING and an in-depth consideration of how a new STRATEGIC LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE might become a reality.

The challenge: Creating a vision of the future is all very well, but could well become an enjoyable but rather abstract dreaming exercise if it is not also accompanied by a process of backcasting. Visions of the future are the first step to a concrete plan for how to make that future a reality, otherwise they are a waste of time, and merely fantasy.

Core Text: Backcasting is a straightforward idea, one which follows on naturally from the process of visioning. I’m sure it has been around for a while, but the first time I heard of it was in an excellent book “Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to Sustainable Practices” by Sarah James and Torbjorn Lahti (2004). They argue for a process which starts with visioning a desirable future and then working backwards. It is based on the question “if we want to get somewhere, what actions do we need to take in order to get there?”

For example, if by 2018, 50% of any new buildings in a community are proposed to include 50% local materials, backcasting is very useful in terms of identifying what would need to be done by when, in order for this to be a possibility. If construction-grade hemp is to be a key part of that, backcasting allows you to consider:

• By when would the infrastructure for processing locally grown hemp need to be in place?

• At what stage would it be necessary to begin training local builders in using hemp in construction?

• When would the first trials on local farmland need to take place?

…and so on. Key to successful backcasting is that the future scenarios that underpin it are desired outcomes, and have emerged from some sort of visioning process. It can also be done for a range of scenarios which can emerge from a futures scenario planning process. You could think of it that forecasting and scenario planning go in one direction, from here forward, whereas backcasting comes the other way, from the future back to us.”

Rob located the source of the concept as being the Natural Step Movement. Natural Step is described by Richard Heinburg in the Post Carbon Reader[5] where he notes that Natural Step was formulated by Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert in 1989. The Natural Step site has a description of backcasting[6] which says:

“The concept of “backcasting” is central to a strategic approach for sustainable development. It is a way of planning in which a successful outcome is imagined in the future, followed by the question: “what do we need to do today to reach that successful outcome?” This is more effective than relying too much on forecasting, which tends to have the effect of presenting a more limited range of options, hence stifling creativity, and more important, it projects the problems of today into the future.

Figure 1 – From “Natural Step”

In the context of sustainability, we can imagine an infinite number of scenarios for a sustainable society – and ‘backcasting from scenarios’ can be thought of as a jigsaw puzzle, in which we have a shared picture of where we want to go, and we put the pieces together to get there. However, getting large groups of people to agree on a desired future scenario is often all but impossible. Further, scenarios that are too specific may limit innovation, and distract our minds from the innovative, creative solutions necessary for sustainable development.

So strategic sustainable development relies on ‘backcasting from sustainability principles[7] – which are based in science, and represent something we can all agree on: if these principles are violated, our global society is un-sustainable. To achieve a sustainable society, we know we have to not violate those principles – we don’t know exactly what that society will look like, but we can define success on a principle level. In that way, backcasting from principles is more like chess – we don’t know exactly what success will look like, but we know the principles of checkmate – and we go about playing the game in strategic ways, always keeping that vision of future success in mind.”

There are other definitions, one being from a “Scenarios for Sustainability” web site which says: [8]

“There is a useful, broad classification of scenario exercises: whether they are a forecast or a backcast. While both procedures have a similar end product – a future state and a path to reach it – the process for generating the product is very different.

A forecast starts with the current situation and possible future paths, then deduces an end-state.

A backcast starts with the current situation and an end-state and then deduces possible future paths.”

Graphical examples of drawing three lines to and from the future and settling on one are shown for each option but the distinction is not clear. Figure 2 and 3.

Figure 2

Figure 3

In Transition, backcasting is integrated with visioning and generates the resilience indicators. To backcast from the future requires a description of the future which Transition determines by a unique process of writing fictional statements about the future. This way of describing backcasting comes from Tom Atlee’s book The Tao of Democracy.[9] Atlee’s process of “imagineering” is described in the Transition Handbook.[10] Atlee is quoted as saying:

“(It) contains imaginary news stories about events or innovations that had not happened yet, but which I and others wanted to have happen, written as if they had happened. At the end of each article, I put the contact name of someone readers could call to participate in making the story a reality”

Examples of this process are found throughout the Totnes Plan. The articles are small, better described as vignettes (short impressionistic descriptions that focus on a single topic). It is worth noting the way they are used in the visioning section of the plan. Following are the different classifications and the number of vignettes in each:

• Joined Up Thinking  – 50 vignettes

• Food Production and Farming – 114 vignettes

• Health and Well Being  – 91 vignettes

• Energy Security  – 89 vignettes

• Transportation  – 81 vignettes

• Building and Housing  – 88 vignettes

• Economic and Livelihood  – vignettes

• Arts, Culture, Media and Innovation  – 77 vignettes

• Inner Transition  – 22 vignettes

• Education, Awareness and Skill for Transition – 98 vignettes

There are approximately 80 pages of narrative and comments devoted to the imaginary news stories. In total there are 787 specific items all written in the future tense. Recall all these commentaries are fictional – that is, they are written as news articles from the future.

It is not clear how the process flows from the meetings with members of the community to the resilience indicators. Do the attendees write these stories during the meetings? Or are they summaries written by the authors based on results of Open Space Meetings? Possibly the disclaimer at the beginning of the Totnes plan noting that accuracy is not guaranteed comes from the fact that a large number of important statements made are fictional. They are typically short assertive statements in story form and reported as if in the present tense within its category and time period in the future. It seems that the process summarizes the fictional statements in a way that lead to the 82 resilience indicators. These indicators are listed in the ten sections next to the summary comments part s, presumably as part of the Backcasting process. I found myself skipping over the stories section looking for the resilience indicators summaries. Although the stories are positive and picturesque, they seem to be more or less random, possibly the kind of work that comes from large groups creating new ideas.

Discussing the future and making plans for it are common human activities done in sophisticated manners in large institutions and in simpler ways in homes and families. Forecasting and planning are always concerning the future, and there are multiple definitions for both terms. All such efforts are attempting to make some estimate about what is going to happen someday. Typically there are some kinds of metrics. It is common for people to talk about “blue skying” and brainstorming. Brainstorming is a group creativity technique designed to generate a large number of ideas for the solution of a problem. It began in the U.S. in the 1950s and initially claimed that groups could double their creative output using the brainstorming technique. Years later it was shown that conventional brainstorming groups are no more effective than other types of groups, and they are actually less effective than individuals working independently.

Using a relatively unknown term such as backcasting may be a relabeling and modification of functions that have existed for many decades. The idea of “going into the future” and “looking backward” is of course a metaphor. All brainstorming, backcasting, forecasting, etc. is typically done in a room with a group of participants talking to each other. Nothing really “comes from the future back to us.” Any form of planning, and that is what we are doing, is always focused on the future but occurring in the present. Imagination is the human faculty that is used to describe possible scenarios and the steps to get to some imagined future. And imagination is used extensively in our modern world. Essentially any effort to plan for a projected future is an intellectual exercise. It may take place in a supportive emotional environment and in fact may be a function of the particular emotional environments set up, for example requiring that it be a positive process with only positive statements. Transition’s backcasting at first glance seems to be a relabeling and repackaging of existing creative processes.

I have many decades of experience in construction and currently spend a lot of time (in dialog with other people) considering the future of building. I looked at Transition’s building indicators (summarized below) from the Totnes plan which, I assume, are the results of backcasting.

Energy Security Resilience Indicators – page 129

•% of houses with insulation to Passivehaus standards

•% of buildings with solar hot water collectors

Building and Housing Resilience Indicators – page 193

• Percentage of houses that have been retrofitted to maximum possible standard
• Number of second homes that have been let though the ‘Homes for All’ scheme
• Number of houses with solar hot water panels installed
• Number of builders that have undertaken the ‘Construction in Transition’ training course, which introduces them to a range of natural building materials and techniques
• Heat emitted from buildings – as measured from an infrared scan from the sky
• Trends in fuel poverty
• Average amount of energy produced by buildings in Totnes & District

These seem very similar to the kinds of things that are being discussed in the U.S. Almost all of these ideas are under discussion or under development, including infrared scans from airplanes. I am not familiar with the “Home for All” term, but the rest is straightforward. Rather than Transition Construction courses, one could substitute trainings from Building Performance Institute (BPI), Resnet, Passive House Institute, LEED AP, Affordable Comfort (ACI) courses, etc. It is not clear to me that the complexity of the visioning and backcasting process has a significant advantage over the many planning approaches in the U.S., at least in building.

---

[1] http://www.transitionus.org/initiatives/12-steps

[2] Transition Handbook pages 172-175

[3] ‘Transition in Action’: the Totnes EDAP Reviewed by Rob Hopkins Oct 8 2010

http://transitionculture.org/2010/10/08/transition-in-action-the-totnes-edap-reviewed/

[4] Transition: Backcasting by Rob Hopkins Nov 15, 2010

http://transitionculture.org/2010/11/15/ingredients-of-transition-backcasting/

[5] Post Carbon Reader – Managing the 21^st Century’s Sustainability Crises edited by Richard Heinberg and Daniel Learch. Watershed Media 2010

[6] Backcasting article at Natural Step Web site http://www.naturalstep.org/backcasting

[7] http://www.naturalstep.org/en/the-system-conditions

[8] Forecast vs. Backcast article at Scenarios for Sustainability

http://www.scenariosforsustainability.org/scenarios_foreback.php#backcast

[9] The Tao of Democracy -Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All  by Tom Atlee 2003

[10] Transition Handbook page 98

Transition Initiatives and Resilience – Part 2

Filed Under Transition | 1 Comment

Pat Murphy, February 7, 2011

My earlier paper (Transition Initiatives and Resilience – Part 1 – February 7, 2011) on the subject of resilience emphasized that the word has multiple complex meanings. It is useful to see just how the word resilience is used in the Totnes Energy Descent Action Plan (EDAP). The following table is from the Vision of Totnes and District in 2030 [1] (page 52):

Indicators – Key Characteristics of a Resilient Community

1. Leadership is diversified and representative of age, gender, and cultural composition of the community

2. Elected community leadership is visionary, shares power and builds consensus.

3. Community members are involved in significant community decisions

4. The community feels a sense of pride

5. People feel optimistic about the future of the community

6. There is a spirit of mutual assistance and co-operation in the community

7. People feel a sense of attachment to their community

8. The community is self-reliant and looks to itself and its own resources to address major issues

9. There is a strong belief in and support for education at all levels

10. There are a variety of Community, Enterprise and Development (CED) organizations in the community such that the key CED functions are well served

11. Organizations in the community have developed partnerships and collaborative working relationships

12. Employment in the community is diversified beyond a single large employer

13. Major businesses in the community are locally owned

14. The community has a strategy for increasing independent local ownership

15. There is openness to alternative ways of earning a living and economic activity

16. The community looks outside itself to seek and secure resources (skills, expertise, finance) that will address areas of identified weakness

17. The community is aware of its competitive position in the broader economy

18. Citizens are involved in the creation and implementation of the community vision and goals and have a CED Plan that guides its development

19. There is on-going action towards achieving the goals in the CED plan

20. There is regular evaluation of progress towards the community’s strategic goals

The 20 characteristics do not appear to be a summary from the EDAP planning process but rather to have been derived from a Canadian report written in 2000 entitled The Community Resilience Manual: A Resource for Rural Recovery and Renewal prepared by the Centre for Community Enterprise, CCE Publications in British Columbia, Canada. [2] This manual has 23 resilience indicators from which the 20.

According to a spokesperson from the Centre for Community Enterprise, their Community Resilience Manual was originally designed for forest communities that were suffering economics decline and the loss of livelihood. It was intended to be a Community Economic Development plan. A second document includes the indicators that map to the 20 Totnes EDAP resilience indicators. A third document is a 5 page summary of the manual. [3] These large and extensive documents can be downloaded (registration is required).

This key characteristics list leads off the sections of the Totnes plan in which resilience terminology prevails. There are many other resilience indicators that are in the body of the plan. The following sets are from the heart of the Totnes EDAP plan – “A Timeline to 2030” which is divided into 13 major sections.

Food Resilience Indicators – page 91

• The percentage of the population with basic food production skills

• The percentage of the population who feel confident in cooking with fresh produce

• The percentage of food consumed locally which has been also grown locally

• The number of people who feel they have access to good advice, skills and retraining in basic food production

• The percentage of land (agricultural & urban) under utilisation for food production

• Rates of obesity and chronic heart disease

• The average body mass index

Health and Well Being Resilience Indicators – page 107

• Depression trends / rates

• Obesity rates in children & adults

• Frequency of visits to the doctor

• The proportion of babies exclusively breastfed for 6 months or more

• Acres of land used to cultivate medicinal herbs

• Average age of dying

• Number of hours spent walking

• Number of meals per capita eaten alone by over 65s

Supporting Biodiversity Resilience Indicators – page 117

• Hectares of deciduous woodland managed for nature conservation

• Monitoring of Red Shanked Carder bumble bee population

• The total km of hedgerows

• Number of mating pairs of otters (Operation Otter at Dartington / Devon Wildlife Trust)

• Numbers of Skylarks in the district

• Monitoring of key bat species

• % of households with bird tables and bat boxes

• Cleanliness of main waterways in the area

• Number of people actively involved in nature conservation

Energy Security Resilience Indicators – page 129

• % of houses with insulation to Passivhaus standards

• % of energy produced from local renewable sources to meet local (estimated) demand

• % of buildings with solar hot water collectors

• Number of people who feel well informed about energy issues

• Number of people concerned about energy security/climate change

• Reaching the government target of reducing carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (80% by 2050)

Transportation Resilience Indicators – page 175

• % of people who walk for 10 minutes at least daily

• % of children who cycle or walk to school

• % of people who cycle or walk to work

• No of people with access to a local bus

Building and Housing Resilience Indicators – page 193

• Percentage of houses that have been retrofitted to maximum possible standard

• Number of second homes that have been let though the ‘Homes for All’ scheme

• Number of houses with solar hot water panels installed

• Number of builders that have undertaken the ‘Construction in Transition’ training course, which introduces them to a range of natural building materials and techniques

• Heat emitted from buildings – as measured from an infrared scan from the sky

• Trends in fuel poverty

• Average amount of energy produced by buildings in Totnes & District

Economics and Livelihood Resilience Indicators – page 213

• The percentage of economic leakage out of the community

• The percentage the local community spend on locally produced business, goods and services

• Percentage of major employers in the community that are locally owned

• Niche markets (in which unique opportunities exist) that take advantage of community strengths

• The relative value by percentage of community owned major assets for the economy and social benefit of the community

• The number of Totnes pounds in circulation

• Degree to which people perceive an openness to alternative forms of earning a living

Consumption and Waste Resilience Indicators – page 229

• Overall waste volumes

• % of agricultural and sewerage waste to anaerobic digestion

• Reduction in packaging on goods

Arts Culture Media and Innovation Resilience Indicators – page 235

• The number of public art works commissioned each year

• The amount of funding allocated to art initiatives with a Transition theme

• The number of new business start-ups that are about making everyday household objects, at affordable prices, yet which incorporate art

• The % of local society engaged in transition projects and activities

Inner Transition Resilience Indicators – page 253 (This section has a different format)

What might an emotionally resilient human community look like and how might we measure this? Below we suggest two areas to explore – first how are people doing, measuring feelings of well being, security and connection. And secondly whether there are adequate support services available. From within the Heart and Soul group we might also survey what needs there are, and whether we are meeting them.

Personal Well Being– page 253

• In general I am satisfied with my life (Footnote: This is the question used in the World Values Survey and in other international surveys measuring happiness, also used in Rob’s survey with 94% agreeing or agreeing strongly)

• Questions from the “Your recent feelings” section of the Happy Planet Index could be used to assess personal well being (see reference below)

• I feel confident that in the future my needs and those of my loved ones will be met (Agree strongly to disagree strongly) [Similar to Rob’s question “I am optimistic about the future of my community” (not sure of Rob’s exact wording)]

• On the whole I feel safe in my community

• Connections with other people, nature and spiritual life

• I feel included and welcome in my community

• I know most/all of my neighbors

• How often do you spend time outside in natural or green spaces?

• Do you consider yourself to be a spiritual person?

• Availability of support

• I can find support that is appropriate when I need it (from family, friends, community services or other organizations)

Education and Awareness Resilience Indicators – page 261

• Percentage of population who have trained in specific transition skills; academic, practical, personal development

• Percentage of people who, when asked, state that they feel confident in a range of skills (see above)

• Percentage of adults registered in post secondary education

• Percentage of children who walk or cycle to school

• Percentage of students who reach 16 with a firm understanding of climate change and other environmental issues, as well as being familiar with practical solutions.

Community Matters Resilience Indicators – page 283

• Decrease in the recorded rate of acquisitive crime (burglary, shoplifting)

• Decrease in alcohol-fuelled aggression and violence

• Decrease in the number of children placed in the care of the Local Authority.

• Decrease in reported incidents of domestic abuse

Youth Issues in Brief Resilience Indicators Resilience Indicators – page 286

• Rates of smoking, substance abuse and alcohol consumption by Mothers during pregnancy

• Breastfeeding rates at 6-8 weeks after birth

• Size of the poverty gap (the links to shorter life expectancy, accident rates and lack of qualifications are well established)

• The number of children and young people killed or seriously injured on the roads

• No. of families with children under 18 where a parent is home outside of school hours and during school holidays

I am not sure of the precise connection between the 20 resilience characteristics on page 52 and the 82 resilience indicators that are allocated across the 13 categories noted above. Possibly the first list of 20 sets the context for the 82. The 20 are more like principles while the 82 seem to reference various metrics. The EDAP process chart illustrated on page 219 of the Transition Handbook shows a “Recommended set of ‘Resilience Indicators’” feeding into a Visioning process which produces a “Vision of ‘transitioned’ local community 15/20 years in the future.” This seems to be the vignettes described in a previous blog. It then feeds into back-casting which is to “produce lists of steps, plans, projects and resilience indicators.” The final set of 82 items typically includes some sort of metric (percents, numbers, etc.) showing they are measurable. But the tie into the visioning process is not clear. My analysis assumes that the format of the eight time periods with statements that might be relevant come from community participation and end up in the 82 indicators.

Analysis and Summary

This brief summary covers parts 1 and 2 of the resilience analysis. Many of the resilience indicators are measures of culture, not of energy or CO2. For Transition, resilience is more about changing culture than saving energy. The Transition Handbook states on page 12.

“This book, The Transition Handbook, argues that in our current (and long overdue) efforts to drastically cut carbon emissions, we must also give equal importance to the building, or more accurate, to the rebuilding of resilience. Indeed I will argue that cutting emissions without resilience-building is ultimately futile”. (italics mine)

The Handbook further notes on pages 174-175:

“Carbon footprinting and the cutting of carbon emissions are clearly a crucial part of preparing for an energy-lean future, but they are not the only way of measuring a community’s progress towards becoming more resilient. In the Transition approach, we see cutting carbon as one of many ‘Resilience Indicators’ that are able to show the increasing degree of resilience in the settlement in question. Others might include (12 examples given)….This is a new area the Transition Network is currently exploring. Your thoughts on what form other Resilience Indicators might take are very welcome. The core point is that we need more than carbon foot printing; that we could cut settlements’ emissions by half, but they would still be equally vulnerable to peak oil”. (italics mine)

It is useful to contrast the approach of Community Solutions’ Plan C. [4] Our perspective is that measures of carbon (or rather CO2) and fossil fuel energy are the single most vital indicators. Community Solutions mission statements say its purpose is simply:

To reduce energy consumption every where and in every way.

To provide knowledge and practices to support low energy lifestyles with a primary focus on reducing energy consumption in the household sectors of food, transportation and housing.

Practice our core community values of mutual aid, mutual respect, cooperation, integrity, stewardship, equity and personal responsibility.

One could view Plan C as simply an implementation of one of the 82 Transition resilience indicators – the last one under energy – which says “Reaching the government target of reducing carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020 (80% by 2050).” The essential challenge facing us is one of survival. So although Plan C might address only one indicator of the 82, that indicator is more important than the remaining 81.

Resilience is a very complex topic as noted in the paper that preceded this one. This paper shows the large number of indicators by which it can be measured. The indicators result from backcasting. In my next paper I will comment on the backcasting concept as implemented in the Totnes plan. And in a future paper, I will detail the process of energy cuts to meet the 80% goal.

____________________

[1] The Totnes Energy Descent Action Plan http://totnesedap.org.uk/

[2] The Community Resilience Manual Guide and Workbook (November 2000) http://www.cedworks.com/communityresilience03.html

[3] http://www.cedworks.com/files/pdf/free/MW100410.pdf

[4] Plan C: Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change

keep looking »

Recently Written

• NEW Plug-in Scam Website
• Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? Part 4
• Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? Part 3 The Pluggable Hybrid PHEV
• Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? Part 2
• Who Will Kill the Electric Car this Time? – Part 1 The ZEV
• A Summary of Transition
• Transition and Permaculture
• Transition, Environmentalism and Positive Thinking
• Transition and Backcasting – A New Concept – Or is it
• Transition Initiatives and Resilience – Part 2

Categories

• Economy
• Housing
• Policy
• Transition
• Transportation

Archives

• April 2012
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• July 2010
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008

Blogroll

• Development Blog
• Documentation
• Plugins
• Suggest Ideas
• Support Forum
• Themes
• WordPress Planet

Admin

• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Find It