Memorandum submitted by Sustraco Ltd
FIVE STRATEGIC
ISSUES ARE
LISTED:
1. Progress by the DfT
This can presumably be established by reference
to the relevant statistics.
2. Coherent strategy
To an outsider there appears to be no evidence
of any coherent DfT strategy for reducing carbon at all, let alone
one that stretches across the entire range of DfT activities.
In fact just the reverse seems to be true, as the following points
illustrate:
— The DfT is responsible for the Bus
Service Operators Grant, which donates £1 million per day
subsidy to buses by reducing the cost of their diesel fuel. This
subsidy seems to contradict Government's policy of promoting energy
efficiency and actively encourages transport emissions.
— The criteria under which DfT awards
funding for LTP projects are weighted so that "accessibility"
receives 30%, "safety" receives 25% and "air quality"
(pollution) only 5% weighting. This gives out a clear signal to
local authorities that pollution and carbon emissions are not
important to DfT. This is particularly ironical since toxic emissions
from transport's burning of fossil fuels are officially responsible
for the "premature mortality" of no less than 24,000
people a year, as compared with road safety accidents which account
for 3,200 deaths. This means that emissions are more important
to "safety" than the issues normally addressed under
that heading, such as reducing traffic accidents. It also makes
zero emission transport a prime example of a "no regrets"
climate change policy.
— The public pronouncements of the
Minister for Transport constantly stress the priority which he
gives to supporting urban diesel buses, rather than light rail,
despite the fact that buses are themselves a major source of pollution
(cf Oxford Street, London or Carfax, Oxford) and require at least
three times as much energy (ie fuel + pollution) to do the same
job as a similar sized light rail vehicle. The Minister recently
called for a "model guided bus system" to be developed
to replace the Leeds tram project for which he refused funding,
rather than calling for innovation to reduce the cost of light
rail. He also found time to attend the launch of the absurd "ftr"
or "bus that thinks it's a tram", whilst apparently
being too busy to discuss innovative, low-cost, zero-emission
electric trams that have been already demonstrated successfully
to the public over a number of years.
— numerous Government grant schemes
are in operation for reducing carbon emissions from "road
transport" (eg Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, New Vehicle
Technology Fund, Foresight Vehicle, Energy Savings Trust transport
schemes, Low Carbon Bus Programme and "other important initiatives"
referred to in the PFV report). The DfT definition of "road
transport" is however unique in that it excludes trams, even
though trams have been running on roads all over the world for
two centuries and are everywhere in direct competition with buses.
Repeated efforts to get the DfT to provide an explanation for
their arbitrary exclusion of innovative light rail from all these
programmes have been unsuccessful. The result is that innovative,
electric, zero-emission light rail vehicles have been officially
discriminated against, by comparison with inefficient diesel buses.
— The DfT seem unwilling to acknowledge
the established fact that vehicles on steel wheels, running on
steel rails, are three times as energy efficient as similar capacity
vehicles running with rubber tyres on tarmac. Adapting buses to
run on rails can thus provide the "step change" in energy
efficiency in transport, called for by the Cabinet Office in their
White Paper on energy—even diesel powered light rail vehicles
would be able to effect this "step change" in reducing
carbon emissions.
— Trams have been proven to be far
more popular than buses all over the world. They are therefore
likely to create a much greater degree of modal shift from cars
to public transport than can be achieved with buses. By doing
so they can make a double impact on emissions.
— DTI and DfT both claim, at Ministerial
level, that innovative, low-cost light rail is eligible for funding
under existing grant programmes. But at official level this is
acknowledged not to be the case. There are currently no grant
funds available, for example, to support the development of a
prototype hydrogen fuel cell powered tram, even though all the
necessary technology is available. Such a vehicle could be as
much as ten times more efficient than the fuel cell powered CUTE
buses running in London, which cost over £1 million and were
paid for by EU and the Government. This represents a serious misallocation
of limited R&D funding. Its development is currently blocked
by lack of Government support which effectively also acts as a
barrier to private funding.
— The National Audit Office, in their
report on light rail published in April 2004, recommended on page
11 as follows:
"The Department (for Transport) should
bring this report to the attention of the Department of Trade
and Industry and the Energy Saving Trust, for them to consider
the case for including the developers of light rail technologies
as eligible recipients of grants for energy savings technologies."
On page 8 it states that "there are barriers to the development
and adoption of new and cheaper technologies. For example there
are no government grants available to develop innovative, energy
saving light rail technologies" and later, the Department
"should also consider the case for establishing its own
grant scheme to promote and develop innovative light rail technologies
as a means of supporting the government's objective to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions through cleaner vehicles".
Despite repeated efforts to obtain a response
from DfT and DTI both Departments have refused to act on these
NAO recommendations whilst declining to give their reasons for
ignoring them. The result is that light rail has been discriminated
against whilst generous support has been lavished on subsidising
buses and bus development, with negligible effect on pollution
as compared with what could have been achieved by channelling
the funds into innovative light rail, with its far higher levels
of energy efficiency, public popularity and hence modal shift.
— The DfT claims that it does not have
funds to support innovative low-cost light rail projects. Innovation,
they say, can only be introduced by local authorities. But the
DfT does not require local authorities to invite bids for supplying
transport systems without specifying the technology to be used,
so that technologies can compete with each other. Thus if a local
authority such as Luton insists that it wants to replace existing
rail track with a guided bus system there is no way to compare
this with an Ultra Light Rail system, even though the former would
cost £78 million as compared with £24 million for the
latter, according to figures revealed only because they were given
in evidence at a Public Inquiry.
— Local authorities will only purchase
vehicles that have been proven in service, but since public transport
vehicles can only operate in service if they are chosen by local
authorities, this constitutes an effective official "Catch
22" barrier to innovation in public transport.
3. This is a point on which the Department is
probably best able to comment.
4. Carbon reduction targets for 2010 and 2020
It is suggested that the DfT needs first to
make a realistic market assessment of the kind of public transport
system which the public prefers. This is because the first rule
of successful marketing is always to find out what people actually
want and then offer it to them—swimming with the tide rather
than against it. There is already plenty of international evidence
available from reputable independent consultants, such as Carmen
Hass-Klau, to show that higher levels of modal shift are achieved
by tram systems than by buses. There is also ample evidence that
the marginal cost of successfully increasing urban bus patronage,
in places such as London, is extremely high. There is also proven
evidence that innovative low-cost light rail can provide tram
systems in towns and cities at a cost of no more than £2
million per kilometre, as compared with five times that amount
for Conventional Light Rail. It is suggested therefore that DfT
should initiate a phased re-allocation of bus subsidies into the
development of low-cost light rail, to provide popular, zero-emission,
modern public transport systems. Not only would this save money
and increase public transport patronage but it would also constitute
a significant first step towards meeting the rapidly approaching
crisis when fossil fuel prices and availability enter a period
of extreme volatility before being exhausted. We neglect energy
security at our peril. Planning an orderly and economical transition
process from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources will take
many years and it is suggested that it needs to start now.
Five specific steps to reduce carbon emissions—these
should include the following:
— reclassification of road transport
to include light trams designed to run on roads as well as on
segregated routes. This will at least create a level playing field
between buses and trams
— phasing out of Bus Service Operators
Grant to encourage clean, energy efficient vehicles
— phased switching of bus subsidies
generally towards innovative zero-emission light rail
— increased weighting to be given to
air quality in LTP assessment and a serious public health campaign
initiated to tackle air quality in co-operation with the Department
of Health
— reappraisal of existing evidence
that trams are more popular with the public than buses, backed
by a new study of the public transport market in UK, if this is
thought to be necessary
— initiation of a strategic DfT plan
for gradually phasing out reliance on fossil fuels, taking into
account the fact that there is now a consensus of oil experts
that world production of oil will peak between 2008 and 2020—if
it has not peaked already
— priority to be given in all considerations
of "safety" to the public health issues arising from
toxic emissions from traffic, rather than just from traffic accidents
— implementation of the NAO recommendation
for either DfT or joint DfT/DTI grant funds for developing and
demonstrating innovative light rail
— initiation of a joint DfT/DEFRA policy
for the production of Renewable Natural Gas (methane) from organic
wastes and a programme of incentives for its use as an alternative
transport fuel, thus reducing the release of methane into the
atmosphere and at the same time integrating transport with waste
recycling, thereby avoiding special cultivation of expensive,
energy intensive fuel crops which take up scarce land and water
— introduction of new public procurement
rules which ensure that local authorities call for transport system
tenders without specifying the technology to be used. This will
allow promoters of innovative low-cost light rail to tender in
competition with guided bus and conventional light rail so that
DfT obtains lowest pollution as well as best value for money
— Priority to be given in DfT funding
awards for (a) value for money (b) energy efficiency of vehicles
and c) clean operation so that more attention is given to reducing
emissions.
DFT'S
"LOW CARBON
VEHICLE STRATEGY"
AS SET
OUT IN
POWERING FUTURE
VEHICLES:
Adequacy of PFV Targets
Since these targets did not apply to the most
energy efficient form of transport, namely trams designed to run
on roads, they were plainly inadequate. Refusal to acknowledge
the superior energy efficiency of railed vehicles has cost, and
is costing, Government many £ millions in wasted time and
effort. Since rail vehicles require only a third as much energy
as vehicles with tyres to do the same job it is an obvious waste
of money to apply new technology, such as hybrid drive-trains/fuel
cells, to inefficient buses.
Adequacy of funding and coordination between funding
sources
Most funding sources, such as LCVP or EST, claim
that they have inadequate funds even to support their favoured
buses. It seems therefore that not only is there a need to divert
funding from buses to more energy efficient light rail but also
a need to increase the absolute amount of money available. In
this respect it would seem sensible for the DfT and DTI to learn
from the delegation which DTI funded to visit Japan in 2004 to
find out why the Japanese were so far ahead of UK in developing
fuel cell powered transport. One of the delegation's main conclusions
was that the Japanese Government policy of awarding 100% grants
for demonstrations of innovative vehicles, at all the different
stages leading up to the market, provided the principal incentive
for bringing new technology to the market. Even a modest 5% of
the amount spent annually on the counter-productive BSOG, would
be enough to revolutionise UK's public transport by paying for
demonstrations of popular new forms of public transport, which
can operate with maximum energy efficiency and zero pollution.
Such systems are ready to go but can only do so if they receive
official support from the public sector, which controls all public
transport.
ULTRA LIGHT
RAIL—THE
FAST TRACK
TO FUEL
CELLS
Introducing Fuel Cells to the Commercial Public
Transport Market
Fuel cells are now recognised as the key technology
in the process of weaning the modern world from its dependence
on fossil fuels and leading it into a new age of hydrogen energy.
The principal obstacle still to be overcome is the high cost of
fuel cells. In transport, for example, one kilowatt from a fuel
cell costs $3,000, compared with $30 per kilowatt for an internal
combustion engine. Somehow a reduction of two orders of magnitude
has to be achieved if fuel cells are to compete with alternatives
in the commercial market for transport.
There are two complementary approaches to achieving
this reduction. The first and most obvious is to increase the
efficiency of the fuel cell in producing electricity from hydrogen.
But producing electricity is not an end in itself. It is rather
a means to enable us to achieve the end objective, which is to
provide people with useful services such as heat, light and mobility.
The cost of mobility can therefore be reduced just as much by
increasing the energy efficiency of the system in which the fuel
cell is used, as by increasing the efficiency of the fuel cell
itself.
Ultra Light Rail is a transport system designed
to eliminate the two orders of magnitude gap between the fuel
cell and the internal combustion engine. The first step is to
increase the efficiency of the vehicle system in which the fuel
cell is used. This can be done in a number of ways but the most
dramatic "step change" in energy efficiency can be achieved
by using a vehicle running with steel wheels on steel rails. This
immediately reduces the energy requirement by a factor of three,
since the lower rolling resistance allows a tram to use only one
third of the energy required by a similar sized bus.
Further cost reductions in the vehicle system
can be achieved by introducing an on-board energy storage system
in a hybrid electric drive train, similar, in principle, to that
used in the Toyota Prius and other cars and even in some buses.
This makes possible a lower rating for the prime on-board power
source which is required only to run at its optimum level, in
order to keep the energy storage system topped up. It also allows
for the energy from braking to be recaptured and used, rather
than dissipated in heat vented to the atmosphere. Still more efficiency
can be introduced by integrating the electric motors into the
wheels. The overall weight of the vehicle can be reduced by each
of these innovations whilst the body itself can be manufactured
from carbon fibre composite materials in a monocoque form. The
whole process, using standard proven technology, creates a spiralling
cost reduction, resulting from each innovative feature.
Using only some of these features, recent practical
test work carried out by Sustraco Ltd, with support from a Carbon
Trust grant, has shown that a 25 kilowatt fuel cell would be sufficient
to power a light tram with similar capacity to the fuel cell buses
currently running in London under the EU's CUTE programme. These
buses are doing an invaluable job in demonstrating to the public
that fuel cells are no different to internal combustion engines
in performance and safety. However the buses themselves are grossly
inefficient in commercial terms, costing, as they do, some five
times as much as a similar diesel bus and requiring 250 kilowatts
fuel cell to operate them. The next logical step in commercialising
the operation of fuel cell powered public transport vehicles must
therefore be to integrate the fuel cell into an energy efficient
tram. This will eliminate one order of magnitude in the cost differential.
Eliminating the second order of magnitude involves
engineering down the cost of the transport system within which
the vehicle operates. Conventional trams are, in effect, railway
trains only slightly adapted to run on roads. Using overhead continuous
electrification they have to earth the current through the rails.
This necessitates underground insulation and removal of utility
services from under their path. The excessive weight of the trams,
together with their insulation needs, means that heavy rails and
a massive substructure are required. Ultra Light Rail, using bus-type
vehicles adapted to run on rails, does away with this needlessly
expensive infrastructure. A further significant cost saving arises
from the superior durability of trams which normally have a life
of 30+ years as compared with 8-13 for buses. This has environmental
advantages as well as sharply reducing the amortisation cost of
operating trams as opposed to buses.
Installing an on-board power source allows the
ULR system to eliminate continuous overhead electrification and
the insulation that goes with it. The reduced weight of the tram
means that light rail can be used, which is easy and relatively
cheap to install and also to move when road excavations are necessary
to service utilities, which do not need to be moved. Light temporary
track can easily and quickly be laid for diversions.
ULR is designed to be the natural, zero-emission,
next-generation successor to the diesel bus as fossil fuels are
phased out. The passenger capacity of the trams is therefore designed
to be similar to the standard city buses currently in operation
all over the world. Rather than increase the size, weight and
obtrusiveness of the public transport vehicle it is often preferable
to use vehicles with a passenger capacity of around 100 people,
plus or minus 50%. As pedestrianised areas are extended in city
centres less obtrusive, pedestrian-friendly trams will increasingly
be in demand. Passenger capacity can most easily be increased,
with maximum flexibility, by increasing the frequency of the service,
which is not a problem on a tram track. A 100-passenger tram every
three minutes is more convenient and popular than a 200 passenger
tram every six minutes. The extra driver cost provides additional
employment and contributes more to the local economy than amortising
heavier hardware. However much larger capacity vehicles can be
developed, observing the same principles, at a substantially lower
cost than Conventional Light Rail (CLR).
All these features, which differentiate ULR
from CLR, result in massive savings in infrastructure costs. Typically
a ULR system can be installed at a cost of around £1 to £1.5
million per kilometre as compared with £10 to £15 million
per kilometre for CLR systems. This eliminates the second order
of magnitude and delivers a public transport system which is non-polluting,
popular and low-cost, with essential flexibility in carrying capacity.
Light, zero-emission trams with on-board power
generation can be used under cover, inside buildings such as stations
and shopping malls, where buses cannot penetrate. A major advantage
in planning to replace buses with light trams is that it does
not involve persuading the public to accept a new unpopular transport
system with which they are not familiar. On the contrary the reverse
is true, as trams are universally more popular with the public
than buses, as market studies around the world have shown. This
popularity is conducive to higher levels of modal shift as people
are more willing to leave their cars behind and travel on the
tram system. This in turn has a positive knock-on effect on property
values, which can be used to facilitate the funding of city regeneration
projects.
ULR is designed to bridge the current cost gap
between internal combustion engines and fuel cells by using standard
production fuel cells more efficiently, rather than waiting for
fuel cell prices to come down. However, as they do come down,
ULR systems will simply become even more economical.
February 2006
|
