GHG Emissions: Carbon, Cows, Cars, and Construction
One of the problems in coming to grips with the GHG situation has been the confusion not only in the interpretation of climate data by various experts but, often, in the data themselves. Lulled by such uncertainties, many have adopted a “wait-and-see” attitude, thinking perhaps that this, too, will go the way of most doomsday pronouncements. But forget that. The carbon train has left the station, and already we’re hearing the rumblings of increased regulatory activity and the promise of expensive mitigation programs to tax our already depleted larders.
In February 2009, the EPA released its Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector, which can be found at [WEB]www.epa.gov/opispdwb/pdf/construction-sector-report.pdf[WEB]…a worthwhile primer on the contribution of construction activities to the overall situation, and what you might consider to be a reliable roadmap to where regulatory activities are headed. Among the many points the report makes, the following are particularly worth considering:
- The construction sector has the third-highest GHG emissions among the industrial sectors, contributing roughly 6% of the total…three-fourths of which are from fossil-fuel combustion.
- Although construction practices typically do not produce large quantities of GHGs compared with the operations of many other sectors, the sheer number of construction projects results in significant aggregate emissions for the sector.
- The greatest reduction in GHG production comes from increased fuel efficiency.
- Often, the steps taken to improve fuel efficiency also result in other benefits, including increased equipment life and reduced emissions of other air pollutants such as particulate matter.
So where do we begin?
Using 2007 national average diesel costs, the EPA study determined that a 5% improvement in fuel economy would save an owner $2,800 per year in fuel costs. There are a number of ways to curb fuel use and thus GHG emissions, but none so obvious as by cutting equipment idling time.
A 2005 study of California construction equipment shows that an average heavy-duty diesel truck (Class 7–8) idles 29.4% of its operational time. An analysis by one construction firm of all its construction equipment (over 300 pieces) estimated that an idling reduction equal to 10% of the total operating time would save almost 524,660 pounds (238 metric tons) of carbon dioxide per year, using the assumption that idling consumes 1.2 gallons fuel per hour.
Idling reductions can also reduce longer-term costs; each hour of idling eliminated can save as much as two hours of engine life. Since an idling engine does not generate enough heat for proper combustion, deposits form over time on the piston and cylinder walls and contaminate the oil. This contamination creates additional friction that will accelerate engine wear.
To reduce idling and the associated GHG emissions, construction firms need to evaluate when and why idling occurs in the company’s activities. This evaluation may include interviewing drivers, making systematic observations of the work site, or reviewing fuel receipts to understand which projects or groups are consuming more fuel. Idling reductions can be achieved through changes in work practices, such as training drivers to turn off equipment rather than idle, or through changes in equipment, such as adding fuel-efficient auxiliary power for the heat or air conditioning needed for driver comfort.
Regulations restricting idling were in place in almost half the states as of July 2008. These regulations vary by state, county, or city, but typically restrict idling to three to 10 minutes and do not distinguish between gasoline or diesel vehicles. Most of these regulations are relatively new and are not fully implemented.
Advertisement
Idling time is what government folks are eager to call “low-hanging fruit,” but there are other practices and strategies just in the fuel-use arena that can make a sizeable difference as well…tighter scheduling, advanced machine-control equipment, and even such seemingly inconsequential activities as van-pooling for your workers and more energy-efficient HVAC systems in your offices.
The point is, GHG reduction is going to become a religious affirmation for those of us who plan to be around for the next decade or two, so maybe it’s time to stake out your place at the amen corner.
Author's Bio: John Trotti is the Editor of Grading & Excavation Contractor magazine.
November-December 2009
GHG Emissions: Carbon, Cows, Cars, and Construction
One of the problems in coming to grips with the GHG situation has been the confusion not only in the interpretation of climate data by various experts but, often, in the data themselves. Lulled by such uncertainties, many have adopted a “wait-and-see” attitude, thinking perhaps that this, too, will go the way of most doomsday pronouncements. But forget that. The carbon train has left the station, and already we’re hearing the rumblings of increased regulatory activity and the promise of expensive mitigation programs to tax our already depleted larders.
In February 2009, the EPA released its Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector, which can be found at [WEB]www.epa.gov/opispdwb/pdf/construction-sector-report.pdf[WEB]…a worthwhile primer on the contribution of construction activities to the overall situation, and what you might consider to be a reliable roadmap to where regulatory activities are headed. Among the many points the report makes, the following are particularly worth considering:
- The construction sector has the third-highest GHG emissions among the industrial sectors, contributing roughly 6% of the total…three-fourths of which are from fossil-fuel combustion.
- Although construction practices typically do not produce large quantities of GHGs compared with the operations of many other sectors, the sheer number of construction projects results in significant aggregate emissions for the sector.
- The greatest reduction in GHG production comes from increased fuel efficiency.
- Often, the steps taken to improve fuel efficiency also result in other benefits, including increased equipment life and reduced emissions of other air pollutants such as particulate matter.
So where do we begin?
Using 2007 national average diesel costs, the EPA study determined that a 5% improvement in fuel economy would save an owner $2,800 per year in fuel costs. There are a number of ways to curb fuel use and thus GHG emissions, but none so obvious as by cutting equipment idling time.
A 2005 study of California construction equipment shows that an average heavy-duty diesel truck (Class 7–8) idles 29.4% of its operational time. An analysis by one construction firm of all its construction equipment (over 300 pieces) estimated that an idling reduction equal to 10% of the total operating time would save almost 524,660 pounds (238 metric tons) of carbon dioxide per year, using the assumption that idling consumes 1.2 gallons fuel per hour.
Idling reductions can also reduce longer-term costs; each hour of idling eliminated can save as much as two hours of engine life. Since an idling engine does not generate enough heat for proper combustion, deposits form over time on the piston and cylinder walls and contaminate the oil. This contamination creates additional friction that will accelerate engine wear.
To reduce idling and the associated GHG emissions, construction firms need to evaluate when and why idling occurs in the company’s activities. This evaluation may include interviewing drivers, making systematic observations of the work site, or reviewing fuel receipts to understand which projects or groups are consuming more fuel. Idling reductions can be achieved through changes in work practices, such as training drivers to turn off equipment rather than idle, or through changes in equipment, such as adding fuel-efficient auxiliary power for the heat or air conditioning needed for driver comfort.
Regulations restricting idling were in place in almost half the states as of July 2008. These regulations vary by state, county, or city, but typically restrict idling to three to 10 minutes and do not distinguish between gasoline or diesel vehicles. Most of these regulations are relatively new and are not fully implemented.
Idling time is what government folks are eager to call “low-hanging fruit,” but there are other practices and strategies just in the fuel-use arena that can make a sizeable difference as well…tighter scheduling, advanced machine-control equipment, and even such seemingly inconsequential activities as van-pooling for your workers and more energy-efficient HVAC systems in your offices.
The point is, GHG reduction is going to become a religious affirmation for those of us who plan to be around for the next decade or two, so maybe it’s time to stake out your place at the amen corner.