The E-jeeps as Solution to Air Pollution: A Misconception

VP Binay and a prototype of his E-jeep

Vice President Jejomar Binay, the former mayor of Makati, is a strong advocate of clean air environment and pollution-free Makati. He was the proponent of the use of electric powered e-jeeps in Makati as public transport vehicles to replace jeepneys that run on gasoline. Though experimental, there are already at least four e-jeeps in Makati - running in Legaspi and Salcedo Villages. This type of vehicles, dreamed to populate Makati soon, is reportedly claimed to be a solution to air pollution. Thinking locally maybe yes; but thinking globally, it’s absolutely NO! By arguing that electricity powered these transport vehicles, we are made to believe that the concept of using e-jeeps as transport vehicles really solved problems on air pollution.

I do not agree with the rationale as the concept appears to me as a misconception. Electric cars, whether directly or indirectly, do not solve global problem on air pollution. And sadly, such a misconception is persistent among media people. Some of them, if not all, agree that e-jeeps are non-pollutants and even offer to explain how e-jeeps may help improve air quality of the city.

Electric cars fall on the same category as Electric Train (the mass railway transit) and any other ordinary household appliances such as rice cookers, refrigerators, air condition, electric fans, personal computers, etc. They all are powered by electricity. And since they don’t run on gasoline and apparently do not produce CO₂ emissions - it doesn’t follow that they are not polluting the air we breathe. They are in fact hundred percent potential air pollutants, depending on the energy source being used to generate the electricity to power the equipments.

There are two sources from which electricity maybe derived from. One is from fossil fuel sources, while the other is from renewable power sources. Fossil fuel sources include all petroleum derived fuels, coal, LPG, etc. Renewable sources, on the other hand, include Solar Power, Wind Power, Hydroelectric Power, Geothermal Power, Tidal Power and other exploitable natural forces.

Here in the Philippines, to date, the only sustainable renewable energy sources that the country is taking advantage of are geothermal and hydropower sources. The government also has started harnessing wind and solar power sources but the scale of its generation may only be quantified as experimental. We must take note, however, that the bulk of electricity that is consumed in Metro Manila comes from non-renewable power sources.

In effect, I don’t believe that the electricity used to power the e-jeeps in Makati comes from a hundred percent renewable sources. Although there are articles describing e-jeeps as being powered using solar energy, still the scale of its generation isn’t considered sustainable. Horacio Paredes, a believer of Binay’s e-jeep’s concept, in his July 3, 2008 tagalog column ‘Deretsahan’ in Malaya newspaper has this to say:

Sa ngayon, apat pa lamang na e-jeep ang umiikot sa subdivision ng Makati. Ito ay mga de-baterya na jeepney – mas magaan ang body kaysa karaniwang jeepney at walang usok dahil sa ito’y pinatatakbo ng baterya na dapat kinakargahan sa gabi kaya ang biyahe nito’y mula lamang alas siyete ng umaga hanggang 7:30 ng gabi.

Here he observed that the e-jeeps, being powered by electricity, do not emit smoke. He also suggested that e-jeeps’ batteries should be charged at night so that it will be available for service from 7am to 7pm.

If we succumb to this impression that e-jeep’s batteries are recharged at nighttime, then it connotes that the source of electricity being used is not from a renewable one: solar power is not available at night. The idea of battery recharging at night, however, can be better said for the benefit of the writer as just ‘replacing the used-up battery with a pre-charged one using solar energy’. But for discussion purposes, let us ‘presume’ that the electricity being used to power the e-jeeps came from Meralco power lines sourced generally from fossil fuels.

I find it very much arguable the impression that since e-jeeps do not emit smoke/carbon dioxide “on site” then consequently they don’t emit air pollution. They are in fact more air-polluting than their gasoline powered counterparts. It is more of an issue of dumping the emission somewhere rather than on the streets where the e-jeeps are running.

Pollution produced by e-jeeps is emitted at a distant power station from which electricity is generated. The degree on how pollution-causing are the e-jeeps to our environment, to the atmosphere in general, is dependent on two factors: one, the efficiency of electricity production and, second, is the efficiency of power transmission and storage. In power transmission alone, significant energy losses are already incurred which means more fuel are burned with less energy output -- eventually leading to a conclusion that a gasoline powered counterparts are more power-efficient than e-jeeps since they directly convert fuel into energy “on site”. The greater energy, which includes transmission losses, incurred before electricity reaches to the e-jeeps; the more amount of fuel is burned and more volume of air pollution is produced.

In global terms, air pollution knows no political boundaries, knows no cities and doesn’t even know Binay’s Makati. Air pollution, in the form of carbon dioxide and other by-product of burning fossil fuel, is spread throughout the globe via the atmosphere -- potentially leading to climate change -- causing global warming and other natural catastrophic phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña. Unless we are able to find a way to generate power from a clean renewable source in a large scale, then we can somehow stop the deterioration of our atmosphere.

As to how much pollution an e-jeep is dumping to our atmosphere in a daily operation is dependent on the following: 1) its efficiency, 2) payload or number of passengers it is moving, 3) its design and other engineering aspects. The bigger electric bill it incurred during operation; the more amount of fuel it burned, too. To determine the amount of gasoline being burned for every unit of energy consumed, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST provided a table of Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) or Gasoline-Equivalent Gallon (GEG). Knowing e-jeep’s electricity bill in Kilowatt-Hours (kWh), one can directly calculate its equivalent gasoline consumption using the table below:

TABLE OF GASOLINE EQUIVALENT (GGE)

FUEL	GGE	BTU/Unit
Gasoline (base)	1 US gallon	114,000 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (conventional, summer)	0.996 US gallon*	114,500 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (conventional, winter)	1.013 US gallon*	112,500 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ethanol)	1.019 US gallon*	111,836 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ETBE)	1.019 US gallon*	111,811 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, MTBE)	1.020 US gallon*	111,745 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (10% MTBE)	1.020 US gallon*	112,000 BTU/gallon
Gasoline (regular unleaded)	1 US gallon	114,100 BTU/gallon
Diesel#2	0.88 US gallon	129,500 BTU/gallon
Biodiesel(B100)	0.96 US gallon	118,300 BTU/gallon
Biodiesel(B20)	0.90 US gallon	127,250 BTU/gallon
Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)	1.52 US gallon	75,000 BTU/gallon
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)	126.67 cubic ft.	900 BTU/cubic ft.
	(3.587 m3)
Hydrogen at 101.325 kPa	357.37 cubic ft	319 BTU/cubic ft.
Hydrogen by weight	0.997 kg	119.9 MJ/kg
	(2.198 lb)	(51,500 BTU/lb)
Liquiefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)	1.35 US gallons	84,300 BTU/gallon
Methanol fuel (M100)	2.01 US gallons	56,800 BTU/gallon
Ethanol fuel (E100)	1.50 US gallons	76,100 BTU/gallon
Ethanol fuel (E85)	1.39 US gallons	81,800 BTU/gallon
Jet fuel (Naphta)	0.97 US gallons	118,700 BTU/gallon
Jet fuel (Kerosene)	0.90 US gallons	128,100 BTU/gallon
Electricity	33.40 Kilowatt-Hours*	3,413 BTU/(kWh)

*Calculated based on 114,000 BTU/gallon base gasoline

If an e-jeep has a 500-kWh electric bill, for example, you can do the conversion to equivalent gallons of regular unleaded gasoline using the values on the second column of the table as follows: N = 500kWh x 1 US Gallon / 33.40kWh, where N is the number of equivalent gallons of unleaded gasoline. The result, then, will be approximately 15 gallons.

To conclude, I do not agree with the notion that Binay’s e-jeep concept is a solution to air pollution; nor the electric-powered MRT (Mass Railway Transit) that operates in Manila. They are not ‘solutions’ but pieces of equipment that run on electricity. The only solution is finding and harnessing green and renewable power sources. And absolutely, it’s not the Binay’s e-jeeps.