Becoming more environmentally friendly is really starting to catch on in the mainstream. One example for me is that Timber and I have been doing a fantastic job of bringing our own bags when we go to the grocery store and when we go to buy clothes. Today I read on the San Jose Mercury News website that the public transit agency here in San Jose has been experimenting with hydrogen powered buses. That sounds pretty cool until you see this:
" The most glaring figure: Zero-emission buses - or ZEBs - cost $51.66 to fuel, maintain and operate per mile compared with just $1.61 for a 40-foot conventional diesel coach. They break down much more frequently, and replacement parts are next to impossible to order, according to the report."
and here is a good quote:
"Analifa Bevan with CARB said her agency "is not considering any changes," pointing out that the VTA experiment involves early prototypes and that the next generation of buses will be more reliable and "cheaper to operate than diesel.""
Notice that she didn't give any specifics on WHEN they would be more reliable and cheaper to operate than diesel. So when going green one thing we have to keep in mind is cost. Generally speaking, people would happily go green if it costs the same and has the same convenience level as our current polluting ways. But if you try to make going green inconvenient or cost more, then people generally won't do it. I think most people agree on that. So should public transit agencies be forced to go with a transit option that is 32 times more expensive? I say no EVEN IF they can afford it. Why? Simple economics. Even IF they can afford to go with the more expensive option they should play by the rules of economics which say that they should go with the most COST EFFECTIVE option. That way, in the long run, hydrogen buses and other forms of green transit have to become more efficient in order to compete. I have no doubt that green transit options will drop in price while convential transit options will rise in price, and they will meet somewhere in the middle. But by using economics to decide, you make the green transit options continue to innovate and get better, which is better for everyone in the long run. If you force feed a more expensive green option (even if it can be afforded), you are (1) not using your resource (money) as efficiently as possible, and (2) you are stifling innovation in the green transit options because they don't have to innovate to get the business. So if I were a decision maker in this case I would either scale down the hydrogen experiment or cancel it for a while, but I would definitely not increase it based on it costing 32 times more than the conventional transit option. I would also take surveys of riders to find out how much more they would be willing to pay to take a green transit alternative. But my guess is that riders are not willing to pay 32 times more right now.
Posted by troutm8 at February 26, 2008 12:53 PM