Navigant Research Blog

Accelerating Urban Metabolism with Waste 2.0

— May 31, 2012

The world’s biggest cities are sometimes described as having an “urban metabolism,” akin to living entities that consume energy, food, water, and other raw materials and expel waste.  Via a well-planned web of municipal infrastructure, a streamlined urban digestive system enables economic advancement, growth in development, and population expansion by improving public health and the surrounding urban environment.

But even efficient digestive systems have their limits.  Over the last several hundred years, one of the defining measures of how far a city has advanced has been its ability to distance its inhabitants from trash, excrement, and emissions.  With more than half of the world’s population living in cities today, and megacities – defined by the UN as metropolitan areas with populations exceeding 10 million – on the rise, this out-of-sight, out-of-mind “Waste 1.0” paradigm is facing significant limits.  As urban entities gorge themselves on resources, the sheer volume of trash, limited geographies, and sustainability efforts are causing the urban digestive system to back up.

For cities faced with this predicament, treating waste as a strategic resource, a strategy I call Waste 2.0, is quickly becoming an enabler of urban growth.  Last year 3.7 billion urban dwellers produced an estimated 2 billion tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) and 375 billion gallons of wastewater, both lucrative potential sources of energy-rich biomass.  When this unprocessed waste is shipped to far away landfills in developed economies or dumped in open pits throughout much of the developing world, the energy potential contained in waste is vastly underutilized.

MSW, a primary urban biomass resource, satisfies one of the key requirements for bioenergy deployment: aggregation of biomass in sufficient quantities to allow for projects to be deployed at scale.  Accordingly, a slew of companies are advancing projects that convert waste to useable energy in the form of power, heat, and fuels for onsite consumption.  At Heathrow, in the United Kingdom, for example, Solena Group is partnering with British Airways to convert trash generated by London’s residents into biojet for use in commercial flights.  Plasco Energy Group is also targeting MSW, but aims to produce electricity for onsite generation.  Fleets of buses throughout Sweden, meanwhile, run on renewable natural gas produced in anaerobic digesters processing organic waste.

For projects targeting MSW, however, securing a consistent steam of garbage is only half the battle.  In some cases, MSW must be separated from inorganic components in order for conversion to be viable.  Although waste can be source-separated at the point of conversion, this can add significant cost.  Accordingly, Waste 2.0 is also about crowdsourcing separation of waste components at the upstream source in order to decrease the cost of technology deployment.  From dedicated waste bins for separate streams (e.g. recycling, compost, landfill) to pneumatic waste collection systems, Waste 2.0 is as much a cultural challenge and a behavioral shift as it is a technological chore.

The European Union has shown that viable Waste 2.0 projects will require a combination of political will fueled by a strong waste management policy framework, economic will fueled by high electricity or fuel prices, and grassroots will fueled by streamlined waste collection infrastructure to facilitate technology deployment around waste.

The last leg of the stool, requiring a cultural shift from the Waste 1.0 paradigm, is perhaps the greatest challenge to increased waste utilization in urban centers.  In regions like Asia Pacific, for example, where opportunities to capitalize on waste streams show the greatest opportunity, the ability of local governments to win over their public by branding or selling the idea of utilizing MSW will have a significant impact on the rate of technology deployment.  In order for urban dwellers to get a little closer to their trash, Waste 2.0 will require herculean efforts to educate the public, but will maximize sustainable growth throughout fast-growing advanced and developing cities.


Diesel’s Second Act in the U.S.

— May 31, 2012

It has long been a source of frustration among advocates of diesel cars that American car buyers have been so impervious to their attractions while Europeans have flocked to diesel.  This is starting to change, with diesel car sales rising significantly in the past few years.  There is still a huge gap in the market share for diesel compared to Europe, but the increasing availability of light duty diesel models in the U.S. combined with the rising gas prices are making the U.S. a promising market for diesel for the first time in many years.

To provide some context, the chart below shows the market share for diesel in LDVs in Western Europe and the top four European car markets since 1994.  In Europe, diesel sales began ticking up in the late 1990s, and broke past the 50% mark for the total Western European market as of 2006.

Diesel Share of New Passenger Car Vehicle Registrations, Western Europe and
Top Four EU Car Markets: 1994-2010

(Source: Pike Research)

The percentage varies quite a bit from country to country, based largely on the comparative prices of diesel and petrol.  In most of Western Europe, diesel is taxed at a lower rate than petrol, and this is partly responsible for the massive shift from petrol to diesel for passenger cars (that and the high prices for fuel overall).  However, this is not true everywhere, most notably the United Kingdom, which has one of the lower rates of diesel market share, but still sees diesel capturing over 40% of sales.

By contrast the U.S. has had very little light duty diesel market activity except in the pickup truck category.  It’s widely assumed that U.S. consumers’ bad experience with diesel cars in the 1980s spoiled the market, as many diesel cars from that time were unreliable lower powered, and distinctively smoky and smelly.

We are now seeing a major shift.  The U.S. saw a significant jump in demand for clean diesel cars in 2011, up 27% over 2010.  That’s higher than the total growth in the light-duty car market, which was around 10%, and also more than the hybrid market, which actually saw sales drop slightly, just 2% from 2011 over 2010, although this is most likely a blip and not a trend that we expect to continue.

There are a couple of reasons why the U.S. is becoming a better market.  First, diesel cars in the U.S. are now much cleaner, as they adhere to the same emissions standards as gas cars do – another difference with Europe, where diesel is regulated separately from petrol and given greater allowance on NOx emissions which are the hardest to control for diesel.

Second is simply increasing availability of diesel models beyond the pickup category.  The market is still dominated by the European OEMs, many of which are in the premium vehicle segments, but there are also mid-range diesel cars like the Volkswagen Jetta and Golf, which capture more than 50% of diesel car sales in the U.S.  The 2013 introduction of the diesel powered Chevrolet Cruze, which will be the first new diesel car in the U.S. by a domestic manufacturer in quite some time, has created high anticipation.

Going forward, we expect the U.S. diesel market to show strong growth but still at a relatively low total market share.   As with the hybrid market, demand for diesel may wax and wane a bit as gasoline prices do, but with gas prices expected to rise, this should drive demand for all types of fuel efficient vehicles, including diesels.


Standards Announcements Expand Wireless Device Market

— May 31, 2012

As the building automation industry has drifted away from proprietary communication protocols toward open ones, it has also faced the new challenge of integrating wireless devices as wireless technology and products evolve and mature to satisfy tomorrow’s energy management solutions and globalizing markets.  A number of standards – particularly ZigBee and EnOcean – have staked out spots in the growing wireless automation device market and are aiming to further solidify their roles as the market matures.

Two major recent announcements provide insight into where that future lies.  The first was the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)’s announcement that it had ratified a new standard, ISO/IEC 14543-3-10, for low-powered wireless devices, particularly energy-harvesting, battery-free wireless devices.  This was tantamount to an IEC endorsement of the EnOcean Alliance’s entire battery-free product ecosystem, and will drive both increased development of EnOcean-based products as well as other energy-harvesting wireless devices.  Previously, no such standard existed for low- and no-power consumption wireless devices, so EnOcean’s products lacked such an industry stamp-of-approval until today.  (If you’re not familiar with EnOcean, their battery-free technology harvests energy from the surrounding environment, such as the energy generated by flipping a switch or from incident light, to transmit a signal over short distances.)

I caught up with Graham Martin, Chairman of the EnOcean Alliance, at the Light+Building Show in Frankfurt a few weeks ago, where vendors such as Siemens, Honeywell, and many others were displaying EnOcean products.  He reported that sales of EnOcean products have been growing about 50% per year, which he hopes will create economies of scale for EnOcean products.  Although EnOcean has made considerable inroads in the Central European wireless automation device market, it is setting its sights on the U.S.  market over the next decade, where it will come face-to-face with ZigBee and its growing ecosystem of devices for smart buildings and the smart grid.

ZigBee, for its part, has been all but silent on this front.  It recently announced the launch of a new standard, ZigBee Light Link, an open standard that provides wireless control for wireless LED controls.  In the fiercely competitive LED lighting environment, where new lawsuits over alleged patent infringements seem to be surfacing on an almost daily basis, the new ZigBee standard provides a vendor-agnostic control solution that facilitates interoperability across different vendors’ technologies.

Today, wireless controls still represent a small niche within the $75 billion automation market, as we discuss in our report, “Commercial Building Automation Systems”.  However, these major announcements from EnOcean and ZigBee represent a big leap forward for wireless and devices and will undoubtedly increase confidence among building systems integrators and facility managers in the viability and maturation of wireless device technology.


Clean Energy Fuels and Navistar Agreement: More than Marketing Hype?

— May 30, 2012

In February, Clean Energy Fuels and Navistar announced a marketing agreement under which fleets can purchase a Navistar natural gas powered truck at the same cost as a diesel truck with a fuel purchase contract with Clean Energy Fuels for natural gas.  Essentially the agreement allows fleet operators to purchase trucks and fuel all in one package.  On the back end, the extra cost of the truck is subsidized to some degree by Clean Energy Fuels, which recovers the cost through the fuel.

The incremental cost for natural gas trucks over diesel trucks varies significantly based on the size of truck and type of fuel (liquefied vs. compressed natural gas).  The extra cost of the NG trucks can be anywhere from $10,000 to $45,000.  Though the market is divided on whether the Navistar/Clean Energy Fuels package is the right tool to accelerate growth of NGVs in the United States, no one doubts that it will help.  Predictably, though, Navistar’s competitors see this as more a marketing gimmick than a game-changing financing tool.  As Freightliner officials correctly pointed out to me at the Mid American Truck Show in March, it might actually be cheaper for fleets to finance the full cost of the truck right now because interest rates are so low, rather than finance it through a fuel contract.  Of course, the counter to that argument is that the natural gas fuel costs are also low, so that contract cost would presumably be pretty low.

In the end, I suspect this will play well among fleet managers who still have to buy the fuel somewhere; with this contract they can remove the incremental cost from their truck purchase budget.  It’s all a bit of a shell game because the costs are simply shifted from the “hardware” (the vehicle) to the “software” (the fuel).  But as long as natural gas prices remain well below diesel, burying the cost of the truck in the fuel contract makes sense because it all comes out as a wash in the total cost of ownership.  Fleets who purchase NG trucks without this contract (from other brands, like Freightliner or Autocar) will still end up recouping their costs in the total cost of ownership calculation.  The advantage for Navistar is that fleets that separate budgets for truck purchases and fuel contracts may be able to buy more NG trucks with this strategy.

Ultimately, this deal may do more for Clean Energy Fuels and their goal to build 150 LNG stations at Flying J truck stops than it does for Navistar.  It seems probable that Navistar would be able to market and sell NG trucks at about the same pace without this deal, but Clean Energy Fuels will likely be bolstered by an influx of new fuel contracts.


Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date


Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Energy Management, Energy Storage, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Grid Practice, Smart Transportation Practice, Utility Innovations

By Author

{"userID":"","pageName":"2012 May","path":"\/2012\/05","date":"4\/17\/2014"}