Join day by day information updates from CleanTechnica on electronic mail. Or comply with us on Google Information!
Over the previous three weeks, I’ve been assessing varied points of the Canadian City Transit Analysis and Innovation Consortium’s (CUTRIC) positions, analysis, and publications on transit bus decarbonization. I’ve printed ten articles immediately about CUTRIC’s materials and experiences, or intently associated and with critical implications for his or her claims that each hydrogen and renewable pure fuel are a part of the decarbonization combine.
The articles cite EU Joint Analysis Committee hydrogen funding annual standing experiences that present hydrogen autos and refueling stations haven’t achieved any efficiency, reliability, guarantee, or fiscal targets regardless of 25 years of EU funding, and federal funding simply since 2016 of €1.2 billion. The articles cite US Division of Vitality experiences on hydrogen refueling and bus fleets in that state displaying that hydrogen refueling is out of service 20% extra of the time than it’s refueling autos and that hydrogen bus upkeep prices 50% greater than diesel buses, and double that of battery electrical buses. It cites Metropolis of London transit findings that hydrogen buses couldn’t obtain full protection of anticipated routes whereas battery electrical buses might with easy addition of en route charging. The articles cite US Division of Vitality printed empirical knowledge on the prices of delivering hydrogen to refueling stations.
One article dealt explicitly with renewable pure fuel, which three dues-paying members of CUTRIC, pure fuel distributors, are pushing laborious for, with one of many companies, Enbridge, having an worker on the Board of Administrators of CUTRIC. That article cited public Enbridge knowledge to indicate that after 13 years of selling and growing renewable pure fuel, it represented 1% of Enbridge’s utility distribution quantity and 0.02% of its transmission of pure fuel, together with for export as LNG. It cited the Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation’s Fugitive Emissions of Unburnt Methane from Engines (FUMES) examine and Shell’s public statements that the most important supply of high-global-warming-potential methane was from their methane-burning engines. It cited World Carbon Challenge’s methane funds for anthropogenic biomethane emissions, the quantity capturable as renewable pure fuel. It cited peer reviewed analysis into the excessive leaking charges of anaerobic biodigesters.
One article assembled a whole set of hydrogen bus trials which have been tried over the previous 20 years. Overwhelmingly, the hydrogen buses have been deserted after the trial and the transit businesses dedicated to 100% battery- and overhead tram-buses. All trials have been referenced again to experiences from the transit businesses or credible press websites. There are extra deserted hydrogen bus fleets than hydrogen bus fleets in operation at the moment.
One of many major articles assessing the $9 billion price ticket Brampton report I co-authored with Michael Raynor, Harvard PhD of enterprise administration, previously a managing director of sustainability and thought management with Deloitte, and creator and co-author of 4 books on technique and innovation, together with The Innovator’s Answer with Clayton Christensen. Our skilled evaluation of the Brampton report, with our overlapping and world experience in sustainability, transportation, technique, and consulting, discovered $1.5 billion in swings favoring a battery-electric-only fleet, dwarfing the $10 million distinction CUTRIC’s report claimed was materials:
- $1.1 billion for modeling that pushed hydrogen bus acquisition out thus far in time that discounting on account of inflation lowered their prices by 40%
- $200 million additional for grey hydrogen prices which might be in keeping with actual world actuals for trucked in hydrogen
- $100 million much less for substitute of batteries in battery-electric buses as batteries in actual world fleets are lasting for much longer than projected and prices within the 2030s will drop considerably
- $25 million additional in prices for hydrogen gas cell replacements as they’re lasting solely 3 years in actual world fleets
- $25 million additional for carbon pricing for grey hydrogen which was totally excluded from the price case by CUTRIC
- $10 million additional for hydrogen storage and refueling services as CUTRIC had low-balled that value based mostly on world knowledge, ignoring the prices of the hydrogen liquification parts they’d included.
All of that is to say that the 25,000 phrases or so printed over the previous three weeks have been nerdy, fact-based, and referenced credible sources.
After one of many first articles was printed, CUTRIC employed a PR company to deal with the fallout. That’s truly an inexpensive alternative, in the event that they rent the best company for the best causes. CUTRIC’s $9 billion price ticket report for town of Brampton, which advisable a blended fleet of hydrogen and battery electrical buses, is so flawed that it’s an existential disaster for the group. If they’d accepted and internalized their failure and employed a PR company to information them to the suitable response, they might have handled the state of affairs appropriately and have an opportunity to be a helpful a part of the transit decarbonization in North America. An excellent PR company would have helped them try this.
I used to be made conscious of the hiring of the PR company as a result of a consultant emailed CleanTechnica to inform them and me that they might be responding. As a result of my motivations are first to make sure that Canada’s transit businesses don’t waste money and time on the lifeless finish of hydrogen or renewable pure fuel buses, however as an alternative concentrate on fast deployment of battery electrical buses, and secondly to help CUTRIC to turn into a helpful company, I supplied some steering in a LinkedIn submit to CUTRIC’s Board of administrators.
An open letter to the Board of the Canadian City Transit Analysis and Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC-CRITUC).
As a mild notice, CUTRIC is dealing with an existential menace on account of its deeply flawed and indefensible report for the Metropolis of Brampton. This isn’t an issue with the messengers, it’s an issue inside CUTRIC. This requires Board consideration and settlement to the response.
Andrew S. at Discuss Store knowledgeable me and CleanTechnica that CUTRIC could be responding to my deep dives into the group’s experiences on hydrogen for transit. Transparency in a disaster is the best impulse.
The Brampton report is indefensible. Michael Raynor and I’ve recognized a possible swing within the vary of $1.5 billion over six totally different classes of issues in favor of a battery electric-only bus fleet. The CUTRIC report for Brampton advisable a blended hydrogen-electric fleet based mostly on a variance of solely $0.01 billion in a $9 billion estimate. The smallest of the swings we recognized have been that large.
Between us, Michael and I are consultants on sustainability, transportation decarbonization, strategic situation growth and enterprise casing with world expertise and publications.
The report was utterly silent on any confidence ranges within the estimates of the three situations, a disqualifying flaw when the distinction between situations was 0.1%. The report ignored the complexity of a fleet with three totally different applied sciences. The report overstated battery electrical prices and understated hydrogen systemic prices, based mostly on world empirical knowledge which I supplied clear references for within the assessments.
The report ignored carbon avoidance advantages and prices. It didn’t value carbon emissions associated to grey hydrogen or hydrogen typically underneath Canada’s carbon value or social value of carbon, when emissions are substantial. It didn’t do a cost-benefit evaluation, however solely a price evaluation.
Most problematically, it pushed all hydrogen buses thus far out in time that the annual 3.5% low cost fee eliminated 40% of their excessive prices.
CUTRIC has two decisions.
Choice 1: It might probably attempt to defend the report, nit selecting at among the factors I’ve printed to solid doubt on the evaluation. That is likely to be totally cheap if the report have been flawed and we have been making an attempt to triangulate on actuality. However the swing is $1.5 billion in favor of battery electrical solely and nit selecting isn’t going to remove that.
Choice 2: CUTRIC can deal with the Brampton report as a significant failure of its course of and governance. It might probably settle for duty for it. It might probably admit it did not ship good situations and recommendation to Brampton. It might probably promise to make amends. It might probably assert that it’s fixing governance and inner processes to keep away from making errors like this sooner or later. It might probably comply with by way of and ship on these commitments.
The second choice is the right one. CUTRIC is not any McKinsey, Deloitte or Roland Berger, consultancies for rent with a broad portfolio. They will downplay this kind of occasion. CUTRIC can’t.
I tagged all Board members and requested that they ensured different Board members noticed it, as all weren’t lively on LinkedIn. I additionally supplied three extra detailed feedback offering particular suggestions on how they need to reshape their group shifting ahead.
1/3 On governance.
Having a fossil gas enterprise growth government from Enbridge on the Board seems unhealthy, no matter anything. Once they tried to interact on LinkedIn, they insisted on deflecting to renewable pure fuel slightly than take care of something of substance from the evaluation of the Brampton hydrogen examine, Mississauga pilot or different pertinent points.
Having a gas cell vendor on the Board is deeply questionable once you don’t have a battery vendor on the Board. Ballard has misplaced $1.3 billion since 2001, a mean of $55 million a 12 months, by no means turning a revenue. They exist due to mindless trials like Mississauga’s and thrive on potential future income from unhealthy research just like the Brampton one.
Having three well-funded pure fuel distributors as members raises questions concerning how a lot cash they’re offering and wherein methods.
Keep away from even the looks of impropriety, is a standard method of claiming this. CUTRIC isn’t.
I like to recommend having a frank debate about Board illustration. I like to recommend a frank debate about ring-fencing members with clear agendas, like Ballard, Fortis and Enbridge, to make sure that they’re restricted to fundamental membership dues.
2/3
On modeling.
CUTRIC has a mannequin, RoutΣ.i™. That it’s a mannequin, that it’s on model 3, that it has a bizarre mathematical sum image in it and is trademarked doesn’t make it proper. It simply means it’s a mannequin that’s been iterated, branded and trademarked.
I like to recommend that every one members of the Board and all pertinent staff of CUTRIC who haven’t executed so learn Erica Thompson‘s Escape from Mannequin Land: How Mathematical Fashions Can Lead Us Astray and What We Can Do About It, then think twice about and talk about at size the implications.
Within the e-book, Thompson explores how mathematical fashions are more and more used to make choices in areas like finance, local weather coverage, and public well being, however highlights the restrictions and dangers concerned when these fashions are taken too actually.
RoutΣ.i™ is a mannequin. As statistician George Field is commonly quoted as saying, all fashions are mistaken, however some are helpful. RoutΣ.i™ could also be helpful in some circumstances, however per the outcomes from the Brampton examine, it’s method exterior of that zone when used for the $9 billion report.
Unbiased judgement is required in software of RoutΣ.i™. This was insufficiently utilized within the $9 billion Brampton situations and report. The Board wants to repair this.
3/3
On technique.
Richard Rumelt’s Good Technique Dangerous Technique is the most effective e-book on technique written. I say this as a very long time enterprise and know-how strategist with a world profession who has learn nearly each e-book on the topic.
All good methods have a kernel, per Rumelt. First diagnose the state of affairs. What is actually occurring right here? Be brutally sincere about actuality.
Second, set up a clarifying and simplifying coverage about actuality that permits the state of affairs to be turned to achieve and challenges prevented.
Third, create self-reinforcing motion plans that align with each the fact and the coverage.
CUTRIC has failed on this. As an alternative of accepting empirical actuality — hydrogen for transit buses has failed globally for many years, is just not bettering, isn’t delivering local weather wins and battery electrical is superior in each important method — CUTRIC is avoiding the laborious actuality that hydrogen isn’t a viable resolution. Additional, it’s avoiding the laborious actuality that CNG and RNG aren’t viable options.
The proper coverage is that battery electrical buses are the best reply and CUTRIC will focus its consideration on addressing the comparatively minor problems with overcoming operational and financial challenges with them. CUTRIC fails on that.
Over the previous three weeks, I’ve had transient interactions on LinkedIn with the Board member from Enbridge and the Board member from perpetual cash loser Ballard Energy. They couldn’t restrain themselves. As famous, the Enbridge consultant refused to speak in regards to the credibility-destroying, $1.5 billion off report for Brampton, however wished solely to speak about renewable pure fuel. I supplied my commonplace reply, not realizing who they have been initially, which was that renewable pure fuel was a critical local weather change downside that wanted to be addressed, required as an industrial feedstock to decarbonize issues like methanol, and a rounding error in relation to transportation fuels. They tried insisting that I present them credible research, so the 4,400 phrase article on renewable pure fuel being precisely what I stated it was is a response to that.
The Ballard advertising government who’s on Ballard’s Board tried to defend Ballard and gas cell transportation sooner or later. Another person created a faux LinkedIn profile, claiming to be a Deloitte sustainable transportation marketing consultant based mostly in Vancouver, however had zero academic historical past, profession historical past or remark historical past exterior of their try to defend hydrogen fleet failures, and weren’t findable exterior of that one faux account on LinkedIn. My assumption is that it was a really weak and amateurish effort by Ballard, who’re based mostly within the Vancouver space. After I pointed this out in response to their remark, they deleted the faux LinkedIn profile and the remark.
However, lastly, CUTRIC supplied an official response. Did they take my rigorously thought of steering on methods to reply? Did they take care of the clear, numerically laid out $1.5 billion swing for battery-electric just for Brampton with referenced, numerically laid out justifications for why their report and situation modeling was applicable.
Sadly, no. The precise response? Listed below are some direct quotes:
- “Ideology, indignant rants and identification politics”
- “indignant on-line postings on LinkedIn”
- “one-sided approaches”
- “a slew of on-line hatefulness”
- “damaging slender mindedness”
- “makes an attempt at customized defamation and character assassination”
They do, after all, determine me by identify on this response, whereas I used to be cautious in my articles to not level fingers at people by identify, simply roles and organizations.
There’s extra to CUTRIC’s response, posted as an article on LinkedIn entitled Setting the Document Straight on the Strategic Position of Hydrogen in Canada’s Transit Future, printed underneath the profile of Dr. Josipa Petrunic, founder, president and CEO of CUTRIC on November eighth.
The arm-waving phrases “holistic view,” “vacuous arguments,” “energy of the human thoughts,” “broader framework of whole value of possession,” and extra seem within the response. At no level are any of them quantified after all, and when the swing is $1.5 billion on a $9 billion situation evaluation that claims to be a complete value of possession situation, they’re meaningless.
The response does assert that “not even renewable pure fuel – is the best resolution in all circumstances the entire time,” when the printed 4,400 phrase piece destroying the premise of pure fuel as a scalable, low-carbon bus gas makes it clear that it’s by no means the answer any of the time.
Various time is spent speaking about battery-electric bus failures typically, with out offering any references.
I urge readers to learn Petrunic’s response. It’s a case examine in how not to reply to the PR catastrophe that CUTRIC created for itself. I had this dialog with a recovering PR skilled in Brussels a few weeks in the past after I was there talking at a e-book launch on European transmission technique and world aggressive with different audio system, together with a European member of parliament and the Belgian vitality minister. They agreed the steering I’d supplied CUTRIC was textbook, and we mentioned the Tylenol tampering incidents of the early Eighties and the not good response by the then CEO to instantly order a recall. Their response to CUTRIC’s response? SMDH, or shaking my damned head.
It’s comprehensible that Petrunic could be defensive of the mannequin which she created and has overseen three iterations of. It’s comprehensible that she could be defensive of CUTRIC. Nevertheless, that’s irrelevant to good governance of a transit assume tank and good outcomes from its experiences and research.
CUTRIC has chosen its path, and sadly it’s the mistaken one. They’ve chosen to defend the indefensible and double down on inclusiveness of non-starter options reminiscent of hydrogen and renewable pure fuel. Their modeling competence for scenario-based assessments reminiscent of Brampton is clearly missing, and so they additionally clearly aren’t going to repair that. Their assumptions associated to present and future prices of each hydrogen and battery-electric buses are merely mistaken, and so they aren’t going to repair them.
For the foreseeable future, they should be thought of to be a non-credible supplier of data and assessments of transit. World consultants and thought leaders reminiscent of David Cebon, the founder and director of the Centre for Sustainable Highway Freight, professor of mechanical engineering and highway professional at Cambridge, host of an annual, world convention for the previous decade associated to highway transportation decarbonization, and founding member of the Hydrogen Science Coalition, agrees and has stated so publicly.
As a notice to paying members of CUTRIC and to Board members, you must rethink your affiliation with the group. It’s not aligned with empirical actuality, is giving unhealthy steering to transit businesses, and when the hydrogen buses inevitably fail to ship dependable, cost-efficient, low-carbon service, CUTRIC can be blamed within the ensuing finger pointing. A minimum of sufficient of CUTRIC’s governance is aligned with these unhealthy decisions to allow the formal response, so it’s unlikely that if you’re appalled by the state of affairs — as try to be — that it is possible for you to to maneuver CUTRIC to an efficient place. There are different methods you may serve efficient decarbonization of transit in Canada.
Till CUTRIC involves grips with its governance issues, course of failures and modeling incompetence, it must be ignored.
Chip in just a few {dollars} a month to assist help unbiased cleantech protection that helps to speed up the cleantech revolution!
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Wish to promote? Wish to recommend a visitor for our CleanTech Discuss podcast? Contact us right here.
Join our day by day e-newsletter for 15 new cleantech tales a day. Or join our weekly one if day by day is just too frequent.
CleanTechnica makes use of affiliate hyperlinks. See our coverage right here.
CleanTechnica’s Remark Coverage
