Earth Talk: Hybrid Cars & Wolf Gunning

Dear EarthTalk: If you have an electric or plug-in hybrid car, you’re paying for electricity rather than gasoline all or most of the time. How does that cost compare to a gas-powered car’s cost-per-mile? And since the electricity may be generated from some other polluting source, does it really work out to be better for the environment? -- Kevin DeMarco, Milford, Connecticut

When you compare battery to gasoline power, electricity wins hands down. A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline—a price not seen at the pump for 30 years.

The calculation was made using an average cost of electricity of 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour and the estimated distance the car would travel on one charge, versus a car that gets 25 miles per gallon and is powered by $3 per gallon gasoline. Change any of those variables and the relative costs change. For example, substituting a car that gets 50 miles per gallon doubles the comparative electrical cost (though it still works out much cheaper than gasoline). On the other hand, in some areas where wind or hydropower is wasted at night—just when the PHEV would be charging—the utility might drop the kilowatt hour cost to two to three cents, making the charge much less costly.

And don’t worry that we’ll run out of electrical power: A 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimated that three-quarters of the country’s current small vehicle fleet could be charged by our existing electrical grid without building new power plants. (And if all those cars were replaced by PHEVs, it would eliminate the need for 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day, or 52 percent of current U.S. oil imports.)

Regarding environmental impact, charging up your car with electricity from the grid also wins handily over filling up at the gas station. In the most comprehensive PHEV study to date, released in 2007 by EPRI and the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), results predict that all greenhouse gases will be reduced as PHEVs begin to penetrate the car market. Estimated cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2010 to 2050, depending upon how fast PHEVs take hold, range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion tons.

More than one half of our national energy grid is powered by coal, and in areas where PHEVs are charged through coal-provided electricity, says NRDC, there is the possibility of increased levels of soot and mercury emissions. However, charging up can be much less of a guilt-ridden affair where cleaner electrical sources like wind and solar are available. The website HybridCars.com points out that as more power plants are required to develop green power and emit fewer greenhouse gases, the environmental and health benefits will further increase.

Dear EarthTalk: What is aerial wolf gunning and why does Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorse the practice? -- Vivian Anderson, Seattle, WA

Aerial wolf gunning involves stalking and shooting wolves from low-flying planes and helicopters. The practice yields better results than traditional ground-based hunting since it allows hunters to cover lots of ground quickly and track prey from an unobstructed “bird’s eye” vantage point. For these very reasons, some hunters—as well as many environmentalists and animal rights advocates—consider aerial hunting unsportsmanlike and even inhumane since it violates the “fair chase” ethic.

Aerial hunting is mostly forbidden on U.S. public lands per the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, passed by Congress in 1972. But individual states can allow it for the sake of protecting “land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.” Alaska governor Frank Murkowski exploited this language in 2003 and signed a state bill allowing Alaskans to apply for permits to kill wolves—which some Alaskans’ fear take a large toll on the moose and caribou that hunters like to shoot—from aircraft.

But when Sarah Palin, herself an avid hunter, took over the governorship in 2006, she instituted a $150 bounty for any hunter who killed a wolf from an aircraft in select areas where moose and caribou populations were not as large as hunters would have liked. A state judge quickly put a halt on the bounty, ruling that the Palin administration lacked the authority to offer such payouts. But the judge was powerless to stop aerial hunting itself as long as it was done in a permitted fashion in the name of “predator control,” per the loophole in the federal ban.

Palin also approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign that helped undermine a recent ballot initiative to ban aerial hunting, and also introduced legislation to ease restrictions on the practice. In the four years Palin has been governor, upwards of 800 wolves have been killed by aerial hunting in Alaska. Palin has joined influential groups such as the Alaska Outdoor Council in maintaining that wolf populations need culling, as the great canines are literally stealing food from the tables of Alaska’s many subsistence hunters who rely on moose and caribou kills to feed their families through the long cold winters.

But Rodger Schlickeisen of the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife says that it is Alaska’s small but politically influential commercial hunting interests—not subsistence hunters—who want to keep aerial wolf-gunning alive in the 49th state. “Their clear intention is to eliminate as many of nature’s major predators as possible to artificially increase moose and caribou numbers where it’ll then be easier for urban and wealthy out-of-state hunters to shoot their trophy animals,” he says, adding that scientific data do not show the need for stepping up predator control efforts.

Schlickeisen insists that most regular Alaskans are opposed to aerial hunting, even for the purpose of predator control. “Twice in the past 12 years, Alaska voters have approved state ballot initiatives to limit the use of aircraft to kill wildlife—and twice the state legislature, encouraged and abetted by the [appointed] board of game, has overridden the citizen-passed laws to restore use of aircraft,” he says.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Weekly EarthTalk Column

Dear EarthTalk: Should we expect to see “plug-in” hybrid cars anytime soon? I’ve been hearing they are on the horizon but I wonder if that means in one year or 10. -- Bill A., Stratford, CT

Gasoline-electric hybrids now, like Toyota’s popular Prius, don’t need to plug in—you just fill their tanks with gasoline and the battery keeps charged by the internal combustion engine and by energy generated from the wheels when braking (a feature known as “regenerative braking”). The battery then powers the electric motor when it is called into service during idling, backing-up, crawling in gridlock, maintaining speed while cruising, and for extra uphill power when needed. As such, the electric motor is essentially a back-up engine while the hybrid relies mainly on the gasoline engine.

Plug-in hybrids take the concept further by plugging into a regular electric outlet to enable the vehicle to operate solely on its electric motor for ranges of 40-50 miles or more on a single charge. This has profound implications for commuters who need only drive short distances to and from work every day and who may be able to do so solely on electric power. The gasoline engine then becomes the supplemental one for when the car needs to travel farther than the electric engine can take it.

According to researchers at the University of California Davis, the electricity cost for powering a plug-in hybrid is only about one-quarter of the cost of powering a like-sized gasoline vehicle. Other benefits include far fewer fill-ups at gas stations and the convenience of recharging at home.

Toyota, currently the world’s largest producer of hybrid vehicles by far thanks to the success of its Prius, announced that it expects to have a commercially viable plug-in hybrid available to consumers as early as 2010 and is now testing prototype versions of plug-in hybrids at two California universities.

Felix Kramer of the California Cars Initiative (CCI), a non-profit dedicated to promoting plug-ins, called Toyota’s announcement “stunning and very welcome,” and says that these vehicles will be the cleanest practical cars on the road in a world where gas stations dot just about every intersection. The promise of such cars, says CCI on its website, is that drivers will have a “cleaner, cheaper, quieter car for local travel, and the gas tank is always there should you need to drive longer distances.”

U.S. automakers are also jumping onto the plug-in bandwagon. General Motors says that it will have mass-market plug-in hybrids—modifications of its Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Volt—on the road by 2010. Ford has also developed a small fleet of plug-ins, but is not yet ready to offer them to the public. Fisker, a U.S. start-up focusing on the creation of high performance, energy efficient vehicles, plans to sell an $80,000 plug-in hybrid sports car by late 2009. Chrysler’s Sprinter van was the first plug-in from a major U.S. manufacturer, but it is only presently available to a limited number of institutions as a fleet vehicle.

Plug-ins have also caught on elsewhere. Chinese carmaker BYD plans to sell a plug-in hybrid sedan in the U.S. within five years. And Volkswagen hopes to have a plug-in hybrid Golf ready to roll by 2010.

Dear EarthTalk: I was intrigued to hear that there were a number of ways one could modify or construct a roof on a house or office facility that would provide great environmental benefit. Can you enlighten? -- Bill Teague, Menlo Park, CA

Most buildings are designed to shed rain, and as such are built with hard, impenetrable roofing surfaces. As a result, rainwater bounces off and collects as runoff, picking up impurities—including infectious bacteria from animal waste as well as harmful pesticides and fertilizers—on the way to municipal storm sewers, which in turn eventually empty out into local bodies of water.

Minimizing this run-off means that more impurities will remain in local soils where they can be broken down more easily into their constituent elements than if they are concentrated downstream. In order to achieve this goal, landscape architects have developed so-called “green roofs,” which utilize living plant matter and soil on top of a building in order to absorb, collect and reuse rainwater while preventing run-off. Many buildings employing green roofs are able to find abundant uses for the water they collect, from watering exterior plantings at ground level to flushing toilets inside.

According to Steven Peck of the Toronto-based non-profit Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, green roofs can play an important role in maintaining ecological integrity within otherwise paved over areas. “The roofscapes of our cities are the last urban frontier—from 15 percent to 35 percent of the total land area—and the green roof industry can turn these wasted spaces into a force for cleaner air, cleaner water, energy savings, cooling, beauty and recreation,” he says.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages the creation of green roofs for mitigating the urban “heat island effect,” whereby temperatures in crowded cities can soar some 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in less developed areas nearby. Other benefits, says the EPA, include: providing amenity space for tenants (in effect replacing a yard or patio); reducing building heating and cooling costs due to the buffering effect of the plant matter and soil; filtering pollutants like carbon dioxide out of the air and heavy metals out of rainwater; and increasing bird habitat in otherwise built-up areas.

Beyond going all out to build a “living” green roof, certain inorganic materials can also make an existing roof greener. The non-profit Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC), for instance, suggests roofing surfaces that reflect the sun’s heat so as to reduce the urban heat island effect while improving residential energy efficiency. According to the group, “a cool roof reflects and emits the sun’s heat back to the sky.” Builders can check out CRRC’s website for a database of information on the radiative properties of various roofing surfaces so as to make the smartest choice for clients and the environment.

Another quality that makes certain roofs greener than others is how long they last. Metal roofs are known to be relatively maintenance free and last longer than shingles in most situations. Slate roofs also have an excellent reputation for lasting long, although getting work done on them can be expensive when they do need repairs. The Slate Roofing Contractors Association reports that sea green slates can last anywhere from one to two centuries, depending on where the slate is quarried and how well it’s eventually installed.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Alternative Car Show Today

Fuel Nice, An Alternative Car Show highlighting the latest vehicle innovations geared towards reducing energy consumption and gas costs and related environmental impact will be held today from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.  at Central Park in Atlantic Station.

The show will feature electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, vegetable oil fueled vehicles, Segways, Cobb County Transit bus, GRTA Xpress bus, FreeRide Shuttle System, Enterprise Rent-A-Car hybrid and vanpool vehicles. The event will also include information from the Clean Air Campaign, MARTA, Atlanta Bicycle Campaign and others.

Parking is free for the first two hours and is available in the parking deck underneath Atlantic Station. Atlantic Station encourages guests to take MARTA, and the FREE Ride shuttle runs between the Arts Center Station and Atlantic Station every 15 minutes. MARTA buses also run to Atlantic Station.